User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2009

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Bilderberg see also

They are other discusion groups for the elite. ie similar to the bilderberg group. Chendy (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you delete both of them, not just one?

Matrix calculus page - seeking advice

Arthur, I am not an experienced Wiki contributor. I saw you have recently taken care of Matrix calculus, most notably enforcing the conclusions of the discussion on Hessian notation (used in machine learning, pattern recognition) vs present article notation (transpose of each other). I have looked at the matter these days and found that Prof Jan Magnus from Tilburg University has written a note (Derivatives and derisatives in matrix calculus) where he explicitly mentioned this article for adopting an inconsistent notation. I agree with him, and although I initially thought the notation of the article was good (seeing that it was better than the Hessian notation), I now think that it is still not the best we can have. So I was considering, in the interest of the community, a major rewrite of the article: I would use the only consistent notation we have, supported by a number of sources, eg

• Magnus 2008, Derivatives and derisatives in matrix calculus
• Pollock, 1985, Tensor Products and Matrix Differential Calculus
• (mentioned in article) Matrix calculus Matrix Reference Manual , Imperial College London.
• Neudecker & Magnus 1985, Matrix Differential Calculus with Applications to Simple, Kronecker and Hadamard Products

I would like to include a short section to explain the difference between notations, and provide the conversion so the reader could make use of sources which use other notations. My first guess at how to implement this idea would be to bluntly and boldly rewrite the entire article, and see what ensues... But perhaps there are less agressive ways, which would be more in tune with Wikipedia's conventions ? I would appreciate your advice.

Thanks.

Sebastien

94.108.198.190 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I haven't got an account yet, I guess that's the first thing to do...

It's not necessary to get an account, but it isn't difficult. There are a few good contributors who have chosen to use only IP addresses,

As for the article, I'm trying to enforce the existing convention, which makes sense (to me, at least) for the derivative of a scalar with respect to a matrix, a matrix with respect to a scalar, or a vector with respect to a vector (with the same orientation, column or row). The underlying problem, as I see it, is that the derivative of a matrix with respect to a matrix is naturally a tensor of order 4, and its representation as a matrix is subject to notational dispute.

I do not recommend rewriting the article which would make changes in any of the specific formulas, but the chain rule and product rule really don't make sense in the sense of matrix products. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As your first source notes, the vec definition works nicely for the chain rule and the derivative of the identity function (which are obviously related), but is hopeless for the derivative of a matrix product. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on where the notation of the article does and does not make sense. The issue pointed out by Magnus 2008 is specific to the derivative of a matrix wrt a matrix, and to the notation the article uses for that specific derivative. In fact, the article's notation for that derivative (mat/mat) is "wrong" in so far as it does not give an identity matrix for an identity function, does not accommodate Jacobians, that the product and chain rules are wrong as stated. So I find that the article as it is (ie, using its notation not only for scal/mat, mat/scal and vect/vect, but also for mat/mat derivatives), is damaging to the understanding and clarity of the concept.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the vec definition is nice in a number of respects: chain rule, identity function, support of Jacobian and conservation of rank [Pollock 1985 on this], and in general, in that it is consistent and general. Its drawbacks are: hard to read expression for mat/scal and scal/mat derivatives (which get stacked), and awkward expression for the matrix product.

Now, considering that the state of the article as it stands is not satisfactory, I can think of these alternatives

1. status quo. Not an alternative in my opinion, since it contains a wrong/very misleading notation for mat/mat derivatives.
2. (least work) from the current article: remove the mat/mat expression, stipulate that the notation of the article does not extend to mat/mat derivatives in a manner consistent with [issues mentioned above]
3. (my original idea) drop the current notation, replace it entirely with the vec notation
4. (middle way, has the most merit in my eyes) have a 'beginner' section with current simplified notation for scal/mat, mat/scal and vect/vect, specifying that it does not consistently extend to mat/mat (NB this means still avoiding the Hessian notation, ie enforcing existing convention); and an 'advanced' section which introduces full story of the vec notation, for those who want to do mat/mat derivatives

The last alternative has the merit of proposing a simple notation for simple cases, and yet not pretending that it covers all cases, but rather informing the reader of the need for a different notation for mat/mat differentiation; and describing this notation.

What do you agree with most? Any other idea? Thanks. 217.64.242.82 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2009

Hi, you recently removed a section from the 2009 article.

• January 9 - U.S. Supreme Court will have a conference on a case of the citizenship of Barack Obama.

It was properly sourced via the official Supreme Court website and all political parties are looking at this. It may in fact result in our constitution either being changed or the term "natural born citizen" may finally be officially defined. I will put it back up now that I have informed you of this. Please do not remove valid posts without commenting and proper research.69.68.181.60 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The date for the conference was set for January 16; it;s a primary source, which is usually not acceptable in BLP issues; and, it doesn't necessarily mean they're considering accepting the case. More likely, they're considering sanctions against Berg. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. So this is a topic that should not be mentioned on Wikipedia? Maybe until a reliable source references it? Would a magazine count as a reliable source?
69.68.181.60 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are separate questions, of whether it should be noted somewhere (which still requires a reliable source, such as a mainstream magazine), and whether it is notable enough for 2009 (which, under some proposals, would require it to be discussed in reliable secondary sources from 3 continents). Remeber WP:NOT#NEWS? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Now it's clear. Thanks.
Mdandrea (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka - Reply

It is strange to think that massacres where 30 to 150 people have died is not significant enough. But anyway, if I add a bit more details likeTaprobanus explained, will you be still removing them ? if that is the case I am not going to spend time adding it.- Iross1000 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They may not be common in Sri Lanka, but they seem to be common in Africa. But if you add details, which are in the respective articles and adequately sourced, and explain why they're notable, I won't remove them, although others might. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Sine you have previously been involved in a similar incident involving this editor, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the repeated pattern of personal attacks on me by him, as exhibited here and here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I take my hat off to you for your recommendation to ArbCom refuse it. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me that you dressed up your recommendation for ArbCom to look quite the opposite to what it appears on the surface. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that the consensus that you claim exists to remove date links is weak, at best. and doesn't support use of bots. Tony and Lightmouse have made many mistakes, as even they admit, while using semi-automated tools. But the dates have been delinked, and there's nothing ArbCom can do about that.
• In summary, I feel the bots were and are improper, but their mission is completed, so any sanctions would be punitive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur, just for clarification, do you really think they're completed? I've checked some date articles (well, one date article, February 11) and there still seem to be tons of linked dates. And even if you're correct, don't you think the behavior (forcing the change through) is counter productive to a consensus building discussion? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the behavior is counter-productive, but I can't imagine such a far-reaching issue ever happening again, unless someone forces through a demand for British English being declared the official language of Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• or American English, for that matter... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Quite. Sorry I didn't include both. Perhaps we should mandate Australian English, mate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment would you mind....

There is a problem that is brewing at Chronic fatigue syndrome. A bunch of new editors and some that have been inactive for a time have been very active here since the Guido ban and things are simmering there badly. I would like to just have an administrator take a look at like the last four or five threads that are going on. I have listed three that I feel show the stress levels rising. [1] [2] [3] I don't feel it's bad enough, yet, to take it to any of the boards and have hopes that maybe someone who is not involved can help put out the fires that are going on. Thanks for your attentions to this matter. If you don't have time, just leave a note and I will see if someone else has time to spare. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indictment: The McMartin Trial‎

i'm you are aware that no discussion is required for minor, obvious corrections to an article such as the ones i made. as far as the 'mangling' of references, well, they both work for me, and if there's otherwise something wrong with it, you free to fix it. however, your continued reverts are unfounded, unnecessary, and are bound to get you reported. --emerson7 00:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that {{Infobox Television Film}} is not as mature as {{Infobox Film}}, necessitating the size tag inserted manually. Aside from that, I've made a couple of minor changes in your version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

that certainly seems to be a better approach than inciting a pointless campaign of reverting otherwise valid edits. --emerson7 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2030s

Since you did not name a reason in the edit summary twice, please tell me: why did you remove my recent addition to that page? ––bender235 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not sourced by a reference nor in his article, nor is there a reason why his opinion might be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now sourced to a book (without a page number), but there's still no reason given why his opinion is notable. The French are notorious for misunderstanding history.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Puh, that's ridiculous. First of all, this is not a historical prognosis (what is a "historical prognosis", anyway?), but rather a demographic one. And second, Wikipedia encourages users to avoid weasel words (like "Some demographics expect literacy ..."). Naming Todd as source for this statement is like naming Ray Kurzweil expecting Artificial General Intelligence by 2020s, or Gerry Gilmore expecting ground-based astronomy to be imposible by 2050. And third, your anti-French bias is not worth of any comment. ––bender235 (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Todd's article doesn't indicate he is a notable demographer (is that a word?) to the extent that his opinions are notable; while Ray is a known expert in AI, to the extent that his pronouncements are noted in the field even when critized. It has nothing to do with an anti-French bias, although I have one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Counterfeit Sovereign or better found online as "the Counterfeit Coin"...

I have been able to source the Greek Film Critics Association declaring in 2006 that the film is is among the 10 ten best Greek films ever made. I have also made a few improvements to the article. Good enough for notability? With respects and best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite glad to have helped. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information in the Ken McCarthy article

Hi Arthur Rubin,

You've made some helpful comments about the article I wrote about Ken McCarthy, an early Internet commerce pioneer and social activist.

The person calling McCarthy a "911 conspiracy theorist" is expressing an opinion, not fact. He has also posted and...re-posted...information that is clearly NOT accurate.

I am not a wikipedia power user and can't figure out how to contact this person - Jettparmer - or otherwise seek mediation for something that appears to be turning into an "issue."

For example:

McCarthy DID NOT write a book on Jonestown by the title he mentions or any title.

This inaccuracy was posted before and removed for the reasons stated above.

I have asked the poster of this incorrect information to please produce evidence such a books exists or ever existed.

If he cannot provide evidence of the existence of such a book, I respectfully request that he stop re-posting this incorrect info.

Also to say that McCarthy promotes government complicity in 9/11 is a falsehood bordering on slander.

McCarthy was, in fact, one of the first people to warn in a detailed way of environmental risks to WTC rescue workers, a warning that turned out to be all too true years later.

He also was one of the first commentators to point out the flaws in air defense procedures on 9/11, something the Pentagon publicly admitted to years after McCarthy presented evidence and analysis on this subject.

This is a far cry from claiming government involvement in 9/11.

Given the emotionalism surrounding this topic, claiming that McCarthy in essence accuses the US government of the 9/11 attacks absent of supporting facts is tantamount to a personal attack on Mr. McCarthy.

Also, as far as I know, the hosting of video on a wide variety of subjects does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise, Google and YouTube would be conspiracy theorists too.

I have spent a great deal of time gathering factual information on McCarthy and other little know pioneers of the movement to commercialize the Internet. I have gone to great pains to post verifiable facts as free as possible from opinion.

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Nolatime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolatime (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficult, difficult. My take, without researching the material closely:

1. If brasscheck.com really was his site (implied, but not stated in the article;, then he has to take responsibility for the 9/11 conspiracy theories on the site, even if he, himself, didn't author any of the theories.
   • If brasscheck.com wasn't his site, it's not usable in this article, and all material sourced to it and all references to it must be expunged.
2. Similarly with brasschecktv.com .
3. I don't see any evidence that he accused the US of government for the 9/11 attacks; but he does seem to clearly state that (forced in) the US Government took advantage of the attacks to elminate constitutional freedoms.

But, be careful. Please remove all false material which is not sourced to a reliable source, and I'll watch the article. (If false material about him appears in reputable media, it needs to be included in the article. Try to find reputable media which contradict the statements, as well.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for posting comments in the wrong place. I'm not a new user, but I'm not a frequent or power user. I'm assuming now that this is where the discussion of this topic should take place. Nolatime (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Nolatime

I am interested in the vigorous defence of the comments I added to Ken McCarthy's bio. I bleieve all the elements added are directly attributable to him. The information regarding Jonestown was written by him and appeared on his Brasscheck website - see Talk:Ken McCarthy. Frankly, I am stumped as to the postiion taken by User:Nolatime. Ken is clearly both a savvy internet marketer and an avid "alternative journalist", who happens to promote conspiracy theories. These are now promulgated via his BrasscheckTV.com website. Let me know where I have made false statements or mislead in anyway. Jettparmer (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I note the deletion of the commentary regarding this dispute over the K. McCarthy article. Here is my thinking. An biographical article on a living person should contain verifiable, non-controversial or libelous facts. All of these have been provided. The originating user seems to have posted the article originally for commercial purposes - as the information originally read like a press release. Would you care to comment on this discussion? Thanks Jettparmer (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the commentary which may be considered as WP:OUTING an editor. Whether Nolatime is an associate of the subject should not be relevant. Whether he's a particular associate of the subject is not a matter suitable for Wikipedia unless he's already revealed it intentionally.

But, provided it's established that brasscheck.com and brasschecktv.com are the subject's sites, and there's no editorial policy determinable, he can be credited with supporting the contents of the site, even if controversial. Other reports of his activities need to be reliable secondary sources, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Both sites are clearly owned by McCarthy (evidenced by WHOIS searches and statements of ownership on those sites). With regard to nolatime, his profile clearly identifies him by name and my concern was that the original posting may have been solely a commercial venture with the bio entry by the user a proxy self-entry. I fail to see how self identified statements, web published articles and other published critiques of the individual do not qualify as reliable sources. Nevertheless, I will stick to basics on the contents of these sites, however, I consider the biography misrepresentative. Jettparmer (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, if you have time - would you review the talk:ken McCarthy page and article? I have made a formal request for editorial help as well as a review from the biography portal. Jettparmer (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur-

1. A simple search of the whois database for brasscheck and brasschecktv.com will show that Jettparmer's representation about the records for these domain names is simply not factual.

2. Another mistatement by jettpalmer: The Nolatime profile does not in fact identify anyone by name.

3. Jettpalmer's stated concern that the article appeared commercial to him and that his edits are an attempt to correct that is not supported by the facts. He has, in fact, added commercial links have been specifically avoided in this original version of this article since it original posting.

4. The subject of this article merits an article in wipipedia not because of his personal opinions, whatever they may be, but because of certain verifiable contributions made by the subject to a specific field of endeavor that is of legitimate historical interest.

5. A simple look at the site before and after jettparmers edits and additions, shows numerous incorrect, unbiased, and non-neutral postings. Furthermore statements he's made made about McCarthy in this and other forums shows his lack of neutrality on this subject.

As jetpalmer has made clear by numerous posts to this and other forums, he does not think much McCarthy's opinions (he apparently objects to the fact that his friends have forwarded them to him) and he is going to use wikipedia to portrary McCarthy as a "enabler and purveyor" of "conspiracy theories."

To accomplish this he has posted items proven to be wrong, to be unverified, and to my mind barely relevant: an amazon reading list, a stumbleupon blog etc.

6. I am not a power use of wikipedia. Time spent protecting this article from subtle and not-so-subtle attempts to undermine its accuracy and integrity is not easy to come by. Can this be moved to level where an arbitrator examines what is going on in detail?

When an editor states his bias against a subject (which jettpalmer has done) and repeatedly posts inaccurate and unverified material to wikipedia to advance that bias (which jettpalmer has done) clearly this goes beyond a run-of-the-mill editorial dispute.

If jettpalmer would like a soapbox to collect links and quotes that support his original thinking that McCarthy is in fact one of the major purveyors of "conspiracy theories" on the Internet, there are other means open to him. For him to use wikipedia to do this - especially when the biography of a live person is concerned - seems to me to fly in the face of everything wikipedia stands for. Thanks.

Nolatime (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Arthur - Which whois database are you looking at? The one I look at does not support that these domains are owned by McCarthy. I am ready to be corrected on this point but I just don't see it.

Nolatime (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I recommend that the Ken McCarthy article be deleted. The information I have provided is factual and verifiable. At no point have I expressed any contempt for conspiracy theories, Mr. McCarthy or any other aspect in the article. It is simply an interest. Ken clearly states in the Alterati interview, which is also podcasted, that he owns both site - Brasscheck and BrasscheckTV. The fact that the Brasscheck domain is now owned by DomainsbyProxy does not change the ultimate declared ownership. There is a wealth of information on Ken's writings and work, all of which are directly attributable to him personally. To repeatedly delete factual, verifiable material is simply not in keeping with an accurate representation of a person's life. Wikipedia suffers sufficiently for being "untrustworthy", and it is edit wars of this type which fuel that argument. I intend to invite Mr. McCarthy himself to view the article and provide some comment. BTW - the Nolatime user site seems to be associated with a specific person - who is a colleague of Ken's - you may want to correct that. I am really not sure how to proceed. Jettparmer (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can delete the article just because someone (here, I'm not specifying which of you it is, for an objective statement) is adding inappropriate or subtracting appropriate information. The only reason for deleting the article would be that, taking all reliable information into account, he's not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think he is notable - though whether deserving a Wiki Bio page is beyond my ability to judge. He is notable both for his marketing impact and alterantive journalism role. THere is a lot of initial information from the genesis of the article which is either unreferenced or unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that he was the program director of the Princeton station, the roomate of Stanley Jordan or a producer of any of his concerts or even a listed advisor to the Levees.org group. I am struggling with a biography which orginally appeared to paint an individual in a specific light (in my opinion, to enhance a reputation for commercial purposes). I concur that opinion should remain out of this article, however, there is a solid record of this persons activities, views and contributions which is being excluded. Jettparmer (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett section

Arthur - you need to read the wikipedia section on "libelous" once again...

Arthur:

You wrote me the message below. In it you made the statement: "Note that our definition of "libelous" is more expansive than the legal definition, so reprinting the libelous material your namesake has been posting all over the Internet is not allowed here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I particularly take issue with that part of the statement that says "so reprinting the libelous material your namesake has been posting all over the Internet is not allowed here."

As you are no doubt aware my writings (Tim Bolen) on the internet have been legally challenged in several venues by Stephen Barrett, and others. And, to this date, every challenge has found my writings NOT TO BE LIBELOUS.

Please show your source for this statement.

You used this thin excuse, it seems, to remove my question about Barrett's LACK of credibility due to information provided in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court case. Why did you do that?

In addition you failed to address the original question.

Tim Bolen--TimBolen (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's quite incorrect, on many points. Reprints of your material have been declared exempt from (US) libel laws under the CDA. There was a judicial finding that your claims against Polevoy were libel per se, and that the original publication of the "de-licensed" comment was probably libelous, but he didn't sue you in the proper jurisdiction. I don't know the status of the remaining court cases, but the Wikipedia article shows a malicious prosecution case against Clark and her lawyers is still in progress. (It doesn't make it clear whether they were your lawyers, as well, so I didn't say it.)

And the question of Barrett's credibility in that court is a question of fact, so the appelate court would have no business overturning the trial judge's decision unless the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. In fact, the summaries that you and Ilena have posted on the net show what appears to be a clear abuse of discretion, as the arguments would apply to any professional expert witness with a specialty, but that's not entirely relevant, either.

Unless the case is particularly relevant to Barrett, and references to the (many?) cases where his testimony as expert witness were admitted are included, it shouldn't be there. I would previously have been willing to accept a simple statement in the article, but WP:UNDUE suggests that cases where his expert testimony was admitted would also need to be included, unless you can verify that such cases don't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur - once again you are not following wikipedia's rules...

Arthur:

In your statement, above, you make several FALSE assumptions that you cannot, or will not, source. This is very sloppy on your part, and, according to what I am reading on Wikipedi's rule pages, puts YOU, Arthur Rubin, in violation of Wikipedia's policy.

For instance: (1) You state "There was a judicial finding that your claims against Polevoy were libel per se," - NO, THERE WAS NOT. Show us your source for this. That IS NOT what the Court decision said.

(2) You state "and that the original publication of the "de-licensed" comment was probably libelous, but he didn't sue you in the proper jurisdiction." - This is totally false. NO SUCH THING EVER HAPPENED. Show us your source.

(3) You state "I don't know the status of the remaining court cases, but the Wikipedia article shows a malicious prosecution case against Clark and her lawyers is still in progress." You have this totally wrong also. I, Tim Bolen, am not involved in this case, and it has no bearing on me. Besides, a case in progress has NO LEGAL STANDING as evidence - for it has not been adjudicated. Only "Decisions" have weight.

(4) You state: "And the question of Barrett's credibility in that court is a question of fact, so the appelate court would have no business overturning the trial judge's decision unless the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion." - You are NOT an attorney, nor a judge, and have NO legal expertise - nor, do you quote any reliable source.

(5) You state: "In fact, the summaries that you and Ilena have posted on the net show what appears to be a clear abuse of discretion, as the arguments would apply to any professional expert witness with a specialty, but that's not entirely relevant, either." Again, you, Arthur Rubin are NOT an attorney, nor a Judge, and cannot claim any legal expertise. You cite no acceptable by Wikipedia, references.

(6) You state: "Unless the case is particularly relevant to Barrett, and references to the (many?) cases where his testimony as expert witness were admitted are included, it shouldn't be there." You are, here, once again in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have provided NO EVIDENCE where Stephen Barrett has EVER been accepted as an expert witness. In deed, Barrett has often been officially denied status as an expert.

(7) You state: "I would previously have been willing to accept a simple statement in the article, but WP:UNDUE suggests that cases where his expert testimony was admitted would also need to be included, unless you can verify that such cases don't exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)" You are NOT reading the source material I provided. The original case speaks LOUDLY for itself. So loudly, I believe, that the words from the case should be the FIRST statement Wikipedia would include in an article on Stephen Barrett.

(8) Here. Below are the exact words from the original NCAHF v. King bio case decision - all of which were upheld by the Appeals Court. I have higlighted, in red, the important parts:

"C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts - Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."

Arthur, I am very disappointed in the quality of your editing for Wikipedia.. You appear to be very biased, yourself, in this matter.

Stephen Barrett, and quackwatch, rely on the 407 links from Wikipedia to quackwatch to give then search engine positioning. Given the facts of this court decision, it appears to me, that all 407 link references are in question and should be removed.

No one, to my knowledge, other than Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson, has EVER been declared by the court system to be "biased, and unworthy of credibility." Such a person. it looks to me, would not, and could not, meet Wikipedia's standards as a source for information.

--TimBolen (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Still wrong.

(1) Found it. The first appeal in Barrett v. Rosenthal found that the statement was libel per se. The case was then thrown out on CDA grounds, and the anti-SLAPP ruling was canceled as to Polevoy.

(2) I'll have to retract that. It ("de-licensed") was found false and defamatory, but apparently not libelous. I'm not sure why. Perhaps that was a jurisdictional problem, also.

(3) Irrelevant, actually. My mistake in bringing it up.

(4) Please read the actual appellate court decision. The appelate court, in a footnote, quoted the trial court as saying "biased, and unworthy of credibility." It went on to say that it would not overturn the ruling as there was evidence to support it, denying the relevance that there was evidence against it.

(5) I'll have to partially retract that one also. It would discredit even a clearly acknowledged expert if he had also worked for political or administrative restrictions against the material he (believed to have) proved was harmful and was on the lecture circuit. It's not just any expert. It's obvious that a "successful" expert witness will get more money as an expert witness than an "unsuccessful" one, regardless of real expertise. Still, there's no real basis in law for that, either, but there may be other facts the judge didn't mention which were credible reasons for his statements.

(6) Barrett claims he was an expert witness in a number of court cases. An example is http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/newwomyn.html . Also, http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html states that "… I have also been involved as a consultant or expert witness in similar cases filed by other parties. Overall, at least ten were settled with agreements under which the defendants promised to stop making the false claims to which we objected." If that can be verified, any claim that he has been discredited as an expert witness needs to be balanced with that. Even it cannot be verified, we cannot include a statement that he has been discredited as an expert witness unless his statement is found incredible.

more to follow. As for not following Wikipedia rules, Ilena was banned, in part, for doing what you're doing here. It might be said that you should be subject to the same ruling, as most of her importance is in chanelling your libelous false and defamatory statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably worth tracking down the ip addresses and accounts (if any) used by people claiming to be the same Tim Bolen. If I recall correctly, some of them received blocks or bans. Since this editor also claims to be the same Tim Bolen, and is behaving in a similar manner, this editor should at minimum be checked for sockpuppetry against any blocked or banned editors claiming to be Bolen. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• 4.233.98.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Brought up in arbcom --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 75.107.23.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Recent spamming of information violating blp. Very probably user TimBolen. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After a quick search, I'm not finding any others. Maybe I'm confusing Bolen with Negrete. I'm sure I recall someone spamming information similar to 75.107.23.242 that was directly involved in the Bolen-related issues other than Ilena. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD

Hello, I've moved your RfDs to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 16, so please check back there for any feedback or watchlist it. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy - Educator or Promoter?

Hi Arthur, I noticed that you promptly reverted my last edit at Ken McCarthy with a forceful comment. I don't see it as a very big deal but I was sure my description is the more accurate. I'd have thought it was uncontroversial that his principle activity is teaching techniques of internet marketing. It is true that he promoted the concept of using the Internet as a commercial medium back in the early nineties when it wasn't generally recognised as such, but surely the idea is now a commonplace and doesn't need any promotion? What is it that you object to? DaveApter (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm about the forceful phrasing. I'm dealing with Alex Jones, where there is no doubt that he promotes conspiracy theories, in spite of multiple attempts at removal. Go ahead and revert me if you like, but it seems to me that "promoted" is more precise than, and as accurate as, "educated". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok - no big deal as far as I'm concerned and I don't want to get into any battles over it. cheers DaveApter (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - once again we seem to be at odds over Ken McCarthy. I'm puzzled by your reaction to my comment today on talk:Conspiracy theory - I thought I was only repeating the position you had asserted a few lines above on December 4th, where you said:

As I said, the only thing in his article about conspiracy theories is that he claims to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There's nothing there to indicate he's a major player even in 9/11 conspriacy theories. Please update his article (with adequate sources), and we can discuss whether he belongs here

Not only have there been no justification for that claim, but it has been removed from the bio page (not by me), quite correctly, because it is false and there are no sources for it.

You say:

Brasscheck.com is a conspiracy site, and it's his.

I'd agree that there's no doubt that it's his site, but what is your justification for saying that it is a conspiracy site? I had a look round it and can't see anything that would lead me to that conclusion. I've only looked at a sample of the pages on it - can you point me to any that are arguably promoting conspiracy theories? More to the point for wikipedia purposes, are there any reliable secondary sources that characterise it as such? DaveApter (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything on brasscheck.com which isn't a conspiracy theory. Some of the conspiracies appear real, and the Pacifica Radio is not your usual conspirator, but... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would look here for one of Ken's original articles which would qualify (reference legal action taken after his investigation here) and the academic journal reference on his writing about the Jonestown event. Full Text Jettparmer (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur - just for the sake of clarity, when you say that everything on brasscheck.com site is a conspiracy theory, are you using the term in the sense of

• a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim, or in the sense of
• folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws, or in
• the pejorative sense to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed: ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational?

Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More-or-less neutral. The Pacifica case is an interesting conspiracy, which would normally be seen as implausible by the usual "liberal" Pacifica supporters. (As an aside, I dropped my subscription to the local Pacifica station, KPFK when then (a) dropped a program which I regurally listened to, and (b) decided that Black History (and Hispanic History, and other -group History) is intrinsincaly anti-Jewish. As a further aside, I wondered if the censoring of outside comments by KPFK staff is related to the Pacifica conspiracy.)

I suppose a real investigative reporter might be considered a conspiracy theorist under those definitions. A relevant question, as in Alex Jones, is how is he seen, by supporters and opponents alike. Alex is seen as a conspiracy theorist. Is Ken?

I think a conspiracy theorist might be a legitimate title ascribed to an investigator - if they are searching for a conspiracy. Bob Woodward, one of the Watergate reporters started our with a conspiracy theory which was later proven to be largely accurate. I think the negative connotations arise when proponents of their theory can not provide sufficient evidence or fall into the second sense described by DaveApter. Jettparmer (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any suggestion anywhere describing him as a conspiracy theorist until this series of wikipedia posts by Jett Parmer. Google searches on his name return a huge number of results, including many endorsements from high-profile businessmen and commentators. These primarily relate to his 15-year career as a marketing, Internet, and copywriting educator; secondarily to his social activism; and not at all to conspiracy theory promotion. Thus any such description of him would amount to original research.

As far as the brasschecktv.com site is concerned, it is clearly stated that views expressed in the videos are those of the respective producers, and inclusion does not imply endorsement by the site's operators. If his own writings are judged to meet this description in the neutral sense of the term, might it not be better to avoid it entirely bearing in mind the derogatory and pejorative overtones that it has? This whole wrangle would be avoided if we could agree on a less emotionally laden wording - how about "amateur investigative journalist"? DaveApter (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This post on McCarthy, a contributor in the early days of the internet, an internet marketing promoter, independent journalist and conspiracy theorist was started in January of this year. I still find nothing negative in the term conspiracy theorist. It is accurate and reflects his writings over the past ten or more years. I refer to the two academic sources classifying his Jonestown work as conspiracy theory. Even the accusations promoted by [4], with which he is involved, have the earmarks of conspiracy theory.

Oddly, the BrasscheckTV site was only recently updated with the disclaimer you reference, as evidenced by the Google cache. The problem is that unlike an automated search site, the inclusion of the videos implies editorial bias - otherwise the site would contain a much broader array of videos.

I am beginning to think that the constant attempts to "redirect" this article towards a specific and incomplete view of the subject individual would suggest that it is not time for including Ken's bio on Wikipedia. He is either a notable person, and thus subject to a complete analysis of his life - in encyclopediac fashion - or he is a private citizen who should not be listed. Jettparmer (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE It seems that more than the site disclaimer has been modified. The WHOIS registry for BrasscheckTV has been altered to DomainsbyProxy from the original AMACORD ownership. The original BrasscheckTV site started in June 22, 2006. Alexa lists the original ownership as AMACORD, with the New York address. Further About Us also provides the original registrant of the site, despite its now hidden ownership. Thoughts? Jettparmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jettparmer states: "I am beginning to think that the constant attempts to "redirect" this article towards a specific and incomplete view..." The case could be made that this statement - directed by jettparmer at editors who find his edits questionable - is in fact a fair description of what he himself is doing. His posts and edits could be considered "constant" according to his own use of the term and they attempt to "redirect" the article from topics that are relevant into a "specific," "incomplete" and idiosyncratic account of McCarthy's career that jettparmer is clearly passionate about promoting.

A case can be made that jettparmer is using wikipedia as a blog to collect and display evidence to support his rather passionate quest to find justification to label the subject of this article with a potentially derogatory term.

Before jettparmer's contributions, this was a straightforward if imperfectly cited article that recounted the subject's career in rough proportion to the significance of each of its elements. Contributions to early efforts to commercialize the Internet are objectively more significant to the world at large than McCarthy's numerous web publishing projects and his involvement with various non-profit ventures over the years. Yes jettparmer would clearly like to take one or two pages of what appears to be a lifetime output of many thousands of pages and devote roughly 50% of the bio's space to those pages...all in an attempt to justify tagging the subject with a title jettparmer has stated clearly in a previous post to wikipedia he has contempt for. There is as little justification for taking up significant portion of the article with the table of contents of one of dozens of McCarthy's sites as there would be for publishing verbatim talks he's given and published. That's what links are for.

As for the issue of "promoter" vs. "educator," - the stated subject of this discussion - on what basis is a person who has taught a subject (web publishing and marketing) since at least 1994 a promoter and not an educator? The video linked to from the site (1994) has a pretty clear cut educational tone. Is the claim being made that one who has enthusiasm for a subject and encourages others to pursue it is a defacto "promoter" and thus to be denied the description "educator?" Have any of the editors posting to this article watched the referenced video? Wouldn't that constitute part of a fair examination of the "evidence?"Nolatime (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)nolatime

William Rodriguez dispute

Your input at the BLP noticeboard would be appreciated:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Help_needed_resolving_content_dispute_at_William_Rodriguez

I would like to see the situation resolved in a way that's fair to Mr. Rodriguez and consistent with our BLP policy, yet does not disregard WP:NPOV. And, the behavior problems need to stop. The BLP/N discussion is an attempt to seek input from uninvolved editors, as well as anyone else with knowledge of the situation. --Aude (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I uninvolved? I had been contacted by the subject; although, (I think) I convinced him that what he wanted is outside of Wikipedia policies, but I certainly haven't edited the article or the talk page lately. I've noticed significant edit warring, there, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the page from my watchlist, some time ago, since there seemed to be nothing I could do. At the same time, turning a blind eye to BLP problems is not a great way to handle it. Recently, I noticed the dispute popping up on the Kevin Barrett and other pages. Now, I see two uninvolved (but non-admin) users have stepped in, which is a chance to maybe get this finally resolved. Ideally, input from uninvolved admins is needed, but any input would help. --Aude (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the BLP/N. Hopefully, someone will take interest in helping mediate and resolve this. There's not much else I can do either. --Aude (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy - Help!!

I need some advice. The Ken McCarthy article is devolving into an edit war. I am at odds with a user over relevant content. Additionally, I suspect some sockpuppetry at work. During the development of the article several of the referenced web sites owned by the subject (Ken) have been changed as if in answer to the facts revealed in the article. Additionally, yesterday his entire Brasscheck.com site went dark updaed - it's back up. The BrasscheckTV site was recently transferred to a DomaninsByProxy ownership status, thus concealing the original owner. I am beginning to feel that this individual really would not prefer to be the subject of a biography. I also suspect that the page originally started out with commercial / vanity intent and has grown beyond itself. I really would like your input (and that of any other admin). It is my belief that the subject is too sensitive and thus the article should be deleted. Thanks. Jettparmer (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Update - I am working with one of the editors DaveApter, fingers are crossed. Jettparmer (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Re the undeletions of AP's so-called mathmatical theories on the Talk:Archimedes Plutonium page. I feel your pain. I added a

box around his text, so at least it stands out now as his own "contribution". | Loadmaster (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

An anon contributor (who seems to identify himself as AP) posted a second wall of text today, so I removed that one and the previous section - and only afterwards realised that there was a week's worth of backstory ! I also removed en passant your eventual response to the first section - hope you don't mind that. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's find a compromise here

Arthur, I get the feeling all you moderators think my goal is to turn stir up controversy and spread lies. Its not. I'm merely concerned, not as an extremist that believes the government is always out to get me, but as an educated citizen of this country. Now if we're going to be honest with ourselves, the mainstream media can hardly be called truthtellers, or even journalists for that matter. You seem like a smart guy, can you not tell me that you hear honest reporting in the media? Honest coverage of Iraq?

Anyway, my point is that my source, from the Financial Times, one of the most well-known and well-respected publications in the world, undeniably has a place on either the world government page, the New World Order page, or the Alex Jones page. So please tell me how I can better word it to your satisfaction, and we can end this edit warring. Because as it stands now, regardless of your views about Jones(which I admit he exaggerates on certain issues, but does tell the truth), his page has very little sources to bolster his views and the views of his listeners, which are out there. They just seem to be censored, like the problem I'm having right now.

For example, check this article out, its about the 1st brigade of the 3rd infantry division being stationed at home, to police american people on american soil. This of course is illegal and violates the Posse Comitatus Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act).

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

I'm not trying to convince you of anything I just want fair representation of a man and a movement that is respected by millions of people worldwide. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I suggested wording on Talk:World government. "(author name), writing in the Financial Times, says ..." well, whatever it is he does say. Include the quote in the text, or in the {{cite news}} template, so we can see what he does say. Alex Jones frequently quotes people out of context; and his supporters, in good faith, may believe that the quotes really support what he's saying they do.

As for Jones, we cannot use his words for what he does, but we can use his words and his sites for what he says. We can't find reliable sources that he's involved in civil rights, nor that he advocating assaulting an opponent at one of his demonstrations, both of which are supported by videos. If you want to say that he says he's involved in civil rights, and can support it with his own statements, I can accept that. But it doesn't belong in the infobox; certainly not under "known for".

(My Internet connection is intermittent at the moment, so I can't check details at this time.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert on 1991

Hi, I noticed you reverted my recent edit on 1991. I did some research on the matter and that is why I modified the page. I am sure you have a good reason to have reverted my edit, but I was wondering what it was. Thanks, 2help (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's possible your research is correct; but the links are clearly wrong. Our article Bravo Two Zero is about the movie, rather than about the real mission. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As you can see, Bravo Two Zero is an article about the real-life mission. Bravo Two Zero (film) is about the miniseries. I think this is where the confusion is coming from, so I am going to re-do my edit. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks, 2help (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. The link in the 1991 went to the film, though, although I'm not sure exactly why. Go ahead and reinsert your correction, making sure the Wikilinks go to the correct place. Note, though, that I haven't verified that the references support the correction, and if they don't, others may reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

9/11

Sir, I have noticed that you support the official narrative of 9/11. I suggest you visit the following website for a step-by-step walkthrough of all the anomalies in the official story as well as contradictions of all subsequent official investigations: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_01.htm All information is presented in a factual non-sensationalist way, and is perfect to gain the pure information that is needed for a truly critical analysis of what is the most important crime scene in history. As one mathematician to another, I am merely trying to expose you to the same information I have seen. Autonova (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens I do support the mainstream report of 9/11, with the exception that I believe that the military drill may have prevented the military from shooting down any of the planes. However, for the purpose of Wikipedia, we believe in verifiability, not truth. None of the sources for alternative theories are from what we call reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Years

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad

User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs—I would like your opinion, especially on the draft of proposed guidelines on linking chronological items. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Recent Years guideline is unnecessary, because even though in is a good idea to organize the page, this guidelines remove the information from the main page of the year, where everybody can see them. Please consider this.User:AliDincgor —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

I am sorry. I didn't know.User:AliDincgor —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

No problem. I answered on your page because I wasn't sure you were watching here. It's late, and I'm going to bed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

James Fetzer

Arthur,

Who else would know what I have been doing over the past year or more? WHO ELSE? Who else would know the society I founded has been made a SIG for IACAP? or that I was flown to Buenos Aires to give lectures on 9/11 and JFK, which were well-covered? or that I have done additional research on JFK, 9/11 and Paul Wellstone? WHO ELSE? Everything I have added--apart from a few stylistic changes--is supported by means of citations. I rarely update, but I did so today, and I find it quite offensive that you arbitrarily reverted back to the original I was updating. The additions I have made are entirely appropriate to the article and deepen and strengthen it. I would appreciate it if you would not mess with it. For God's sake, I have published 28 books and edited important journals, some of which I founded. I understand what is appropriate and what is not. The activities I have added are important and relevant, including replies to attacks that have been made upon me in the past, which I consider to be entirely without merit. But I only observe that I have replied to them "several times", which, of course, is the case and is easily verified, since I have provided citations. The same for everything else I have added to make this a more complete and timely article. In the past, the complaint has been made that some points were not documented. Well, everything I have added here is documented! This should be a welcome development.

James H. Fetzer (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI, as I noted on your talk page. What you should do is note the documentation for what you've done on your talk page (which is sadly lacking in comments over the past 2 years), and some of your supporters will include your accomplishments. You clearly do not know what is considered appropriate to Wikipedia. As you've edited your article in 2004 and in 2006, and been warned about improperly including information about yourself, I'm not sure I should have warned you this time; instead just blocking you. But I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

As an aside, there are a number of people, some more notable than you, who have been banned from Wikipedia, primarily for including inappopriate information about themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur,

The very idea that subjects of articles should not make entries is at least faintly absurd. WHO ELSE is going to know more about the subject? WHO ELSE is going to be more sensitive to nuances and subtleties in their entries? EVERYTHING I HAVE ADDED IS OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. What, are you suggesting that I did not fly to Buenos Aires for a week of lectures on 9/11 and JFK? and that my visit received extensive coverage? There were about eight articles in newspapers, but what is most striking is TELOS, the News Service of the Republic of Arentina, published two long articles about my visit, including a list of discoveries by Scholars that refute major aspects of the official account of 9/11! Now, when it comes to "conflicts of interest", since you have acknowledged that you accept the official account, how can you be OBJECTIVE AND BALANCED in evaluating my work? What is the basis for your beliefs about 9/11? I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. I have spent years studying 9/11 with physicists, engineers, pilots, and other experts. I founded Scholars to figure out what happened. Tell me, what is the melting point of steel, for example? UL certified the steel used in the building to 2,000*F for three to four hours without suffering any adverse effects. How long and how hot did these fires burn? What is "jet fuel" made of? What is the burning temperature of kerosene? NIST studied 236 samples of steel taken from the WTC. What was the result of their study? 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F, which is the temperature of an ordinary office fire, the other three not to temperatures above 1,200*-1,400*F. But the melting point of steel is 2,800*F! The rest of the buildings-- below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th floor of the South Tower--were stone cold steel. They had a carrying capacity that was around five times what they were bearing, which means that "pancake collapses" were not even physically possible. Plus there were massive explosions in the subbasements PRIOR TO any impacts by any planes, which occurred as much as 14-17 seconds earlier! They took out the sprinkler systems, which would have extinguished these very modest fires. IMPOSING YOUR OPINIONS ON THOSE WHO KNOW MORE ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS IS COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THE IDEA OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. And I am not even making arguments about what actually happened here, but only describing activities and publications in which I am attempting to bring the truth about 9/11--as I understand it--into the public domain. More- over, since you ask for documentation and citations on every crucial point, how can there be a "conflict of interest" between the subject of an article and the points they are contributing, WHEN EACH OF THEM IS VERIFIABLE? Surely the subjects know more about their lives than anyone else alive. ALL OF MY ADDITIONS ARE RELEVANT AND ACCURATE, as you would know if you followed the links and citations that I have provided. The entry makes it clear that I am especially interesting--over and above my publications in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science, which can be verified by my academic home page--because I hold controversial views about JFK, 9/11, and the crash that took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Surely it is appropriate to add information about additional research I have done on each of these subjects, especially by providing links and other citations where it can be verified. And since I am "controversial", isn't it a good idea to observe that I have been selected for inclusion in WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA and WHO'S WHO IN THE WORLD? or that the professional society I have founded is becoming a Special Interest Group for the International Association for Computing and Philosophy? Your conflict policy seems to imply that you would rather have an encyclopedia that is inaccurate and incomplete than to accept information from the subjects of its entries--EVEN WHEN THAT INFORMATION IS EASILY VERIFIABLE! Something is wrong here, even profoundly confused. Information of the kind that I have added belongs in the text of the entry. Few will be those who know or even care that there are "talk" pages where minutia can be discussed. None of the items that I have added falls into that category. They are important and relevant. I suggest that you have mistaken the SOURCE of relevant data for its TRUTH, even though you requires that data be VERIFIABLE! Well, no one in the world is going to know more about these subjects than the subjects themselves. If you are dedicated to the integrity of Wikipedia, your requirement of verification is appropriate, but disallowing subjects from making contributions is not. The right policy is that additions or revisions by subjects is only appropriate when it adds to the accuracy and completeness of their entries, where those changes are able to be verified.

Now I have gone through the revisions and corrections I have made to my entry, and they all add to the accuracy and completeness of my entry--and are easily verifiable! That includes my addition about the Society for Machines & Mentality being made a SIG of the IACAP and that my bio sketch has appeared in standard reference works, where I could add another citation to my academic home page if you want further verification. That I co-edit an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK is also an appropriate addition, since it no only confirms my standing in the field but identifies a resource for those who want to learn more. Need I add that exposing the false reports our government has sold us as a form of propaganda is in the public interest? that without true information we continue to be susceptible to being manipulated on the basis of fake rationales, as in the case of going to war in Iraq and even Afghanistan, when even Bush has conceded that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; a series of inquiries--including by the Inspector General of the Pentagon--has concluded that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda; and even our FBI--our own FBI!--has acknowledged that it has "no hard evidence" connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11? Surely what experts have to say about events of this magnitude that corrects the misinformation peddled by administrations is overwhelmingly in the public interest! That I have lectured on JFK at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities is also clearly relevant to assessing my credibility--and that this is a subject on which I continue to make major research contributions is also relevant. My trip to Argentina has been discussed above, but surely that I have been flown to Athens to appear on a three and 1/2 hour television program on 9/11 that was broadcast world-wide by satellite and that I was flown to Buenos Aires to lecture on JFK and 9/11 are also notable and appropriate. That I organized the first conference sponsored by Scholars on 9/11 and produced its first DVD are also significant developments in reaching out to the public to inform it of our discoveries. That I have also done additional research on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone--in collaboration with a Ph.D. in physics who specializes in electromagnetism--which was published in Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter--is also clearly appropriate and, again, provides an access route for the public to consider the evidence we have unearthed in greater detail. Need I observe that, if the GOP has found a fool-proof method for taking out its political enemies, then the public needs to know about it? And, again, it is easily verified, since I provided a link to the article itself. Because I have been attacked numerous times by others who, in my opinion, have an agenda, surely it is appropriate to point out that I have responded to these attacks "several times" and provide links. Otherwise, the impression is left standing that I have had no response and therefore they must be right. And surely there can be scant doubt that correcting information about the radio program I am currently hosting is likewise relevant and appropriate. If you think I am wrong about any of these changes and additions, then let's discuss them, item by item. But to make a blanket judgment that corrections and clarifications like these are UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SOURCE, WHEN THEY ARE VERIFIABLE, is an indefensible policy for an encyclopedia, unless you want to promote information that is inaccurate or incomplete! All I have done is take the categories of my entry and added more relevant information to them. I realize editing Wikipedia has to be a time-consuming and in many ways thankless task. I know the time and effort required to edit journals and books, an area in which I am an expert. So please know that, after scrutinizing the changes that I have introduced in making these revisions because you have made an issue of it, they all appear to be relevant and appropriate in the best interest of having a more accurate and complete entry on its subject. That the subject happens to be me is surely irrelevant. Given that they are all objective and verifiable--where you will see that I am not offering arguments to support my opinions on any of these controversial issues, but only explaining where I have done more research and the public reception I am receiving--I submit I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia by making this entry more accurate and complete with documentation and citation. If I have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, then I could be wrong, but it appears to me that, in fact, these changes are constructive and promote the objectives of the encyclopedia. Let me know if you think I am wrong about any specific items and we can discuss them. Thanks!

James H. Fetzer (the four tildes did not yield my name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.19.124 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Notable; Undid Revision 267772717 by Kentholke

Greetings Mr. Rubin

I noticed to "undid" my addition of Phil Spector's arrest to the February 3 events section, citing that it was "not notable." So that I may gain better understanding for the future, is it Phil Spector himself you believe is not notable, or is it his arrest in connection with a capitol murder investigation that is not notable? Might it have been the verbage I used that made the event pale in comparison to the other events? Or is it a simple case of me missing the boat somewhere, so to speak? Kentholke (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, except in case of a manhunt, an arrest is not notable, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Others may differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time out to clarify this for me. I respect your opinion. I also find myself in agreement to a certain degree. Cheers! Kentholke (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm disapointed, but...

I was bored and did something like 4-5 hours worth of editing wikipedia today, my usual is about an hour. I just found out all of my edits were reverted by you. Why did you revert every single one? I feel like I just wasted all that time now. Some of my edits were on restructuring articles and were very helpful for some. I know Nineties kid is probrably not notable, but I was helping someone else finish it. A lot of the pages I added into the 2000s fads category belong there: Citizen journalism, Bionicle, Line Rider, Dancing banana, Metrosexual, Retrogaming are surely fads for our decade. I thought that one of the main points to wikipedia was to change pages in order to progress them, isn't wikipedia's slogan "Be bold". I'm not attacking or anything, but 4-5 hours geez and I don't vandilize, I'm in the process of reforming several key articles mostly relating to the 1990s decade. (Tigerghost (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

1. I didn't say Nineties kid wasn't notable; I said that the parts which are not WP:Original Research belong in Generation Y.
2. Most of the entries you describe Most don't look like Category:2000s fads to me. I read through the articles, and I didn't see evidence there or in the real world for fad-dom. As for Bionicle, I noted Bionicle as a whole as the fad, rather than the list of toys, and I do recognize that one.
3. The #See also section for 1990s in science and technology should be replaced by a nav template. It's clearly bad, and worse than nothing, the way you had it. I can't find the right nav template though; perhaps there's one in 1990s in India. Well, there is, but it's substituted. Let me see if I can fix that up....

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound a little harsh on my previous paragraph, I have been the target of your re-editing before. I mistook the edits as personal attack. I apoligize. Lately I've been getting into similar edit wars with the 1990s decade page. I want to reform it to match the 2000s one; the current page is lengthy and all of the information is already stored on sub articles. Anytime I have changed it, it has been reverted back. Any advice could be appriciated(Tigerghost (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Stanley Meyer article

Can you please at least offer me some explanation of your reversion of my edit to the Meyer article? Did you even bother to read the page I cited from?

EDIT: I've just been reading through this talk page, as well. Looks like you're really well loved around here.

Petrus4 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I love you, User:Arthur Rubin; well, your work here is of quality, at least. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. Also, extraordinary claims (that the Nature article is incorrect) requires extraordinary evidence (at least, a peer-reviewed journal). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Polynomials AfD

Thanks! Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is it you say I don't know how to edit an RFAr? I appreciate your comments at the Workshop, I just wasn't expecting this, so if you would clarify I'd be grateful for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Primarily WP:BAIT. You need a thick skin to edit an RfAr, especially if you're a party. You (and TE) don't need to comment each time the WP:GANG makes absurd comments about date linking, nor do you need to repeatedly accuse Tony, Greg, DaBomb87, Lightmouse, etc., of bad faith, incivility, and genocide. (Well, perhaps not the last.) I'm afraid I'm guilty of making repeated accusations, myself, but they're not all in the proposed findings yet. That being said, I liked "Wikipedia is not Survivor". I'm more upset by TE's placing megabites of evidence in /Workshop rather than in /Evidence, but TE seems to have gone off the deep end, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (especially looking back at it now). I will do my best to avoid the baiting (particularly Tony and Greg's latest comments), hopefully others will choose to correct them if necessary. As for TE, agreed, but he did remove quite a bit the other day (you may not have noticed since there's this latest spat taking place now) and replaced it with direct links to his evidence. Trimmed quite a bit. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you agree it's time to call time? Have either of you tried talking some sense into TE, before he has a nervous breakdown and/or doubles the size of the arbcom page again? Ohconfucius (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was castigated and held up to ridicule last time I expressed concern over TE's state of mind; my god, I'll never make that mistake again, but just to say that I am privately concerned. BTW, comma splice before "hopefully". Tony (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken down and used in evidence, even. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To Arthur Rubin and Locke Cole: Although your views don't always align with mine, I appreciate your willingness to work toward a compromise and progress, something which Tennis expert's latest proposal does nothing of this sort. I would hope that you two don't endorse that fanatical and punitive proposal, as I think it is sheer madness. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Counter proposal on chronological linking

Please share your ideas at User:Kendrick7/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. -- Kendrick7^talk

Well, I've put my thoughts down there at User:Kendrick7/Summary_of_the_Date_Linking_RFCs#Linking_chronological_items, with some feedback from Earl Martin as well, if you want to have a look. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Research Editor

Hi Arthur,

ResearchEditor seems to have started a new round of socking with a bunch of throwaway accounts (your revert to the day care sex abuse hysteria would be one in my mind). As usual, it's stuff related to satanic ritual abuse and child abuse in general. I'll put together another RFCU when I have the time. But if you wanted to have a look around to see if there's any specious changes I've missed, I'd be most obliged. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re. Question

Hello Arthur - sorry for the late response here. If you see this link, you'll see how the proposal was worded. It wasn't a proposal that could be used by the committee, it was a statement from Greg. Perhaps something could be taken from it. I'll give a brief suggestion of wording and you can take it or modify it as appropriate.

Request for comment

Within two weeks of this case closing, the Arbitration Committee will create a request for comment to determine what the community consensus is for linking dates within articles. The Request for comment will be open for one month, after which the Committee will assess the consensus for or against date linking in different situations and make a binding resolution to the future of date linking. The committee recognises that it does not make policy, but believes that in this instance it would be merely interpreting the will of the community, rather than forcing something upon them.

How does that sound? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. If ArbComm is willing to prepare the RfC and assess the results, there should be few objections. Although it isn't exactly an ArbComm matter, it might be a good idea to have this RfC pointed to at WP:CENT and appropriate banner lines. It might be best if the committee also specified the proper form of announcement, to avoid WP:CANVASS problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My thought was that if it was an arbcom created RfC, we could probably get it placed on the watchlist so everyone could see it. The structure of the RfC needs some consideration - to get clear opinions a straw poll would be good, but at the same time it would be good to get outside views. I'll have to think about that one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, yes. This is good. No, this is outstanding. This, I believe, will settle what is the true nucleus of the dispute, from which all other discord arrises. I suggest that you issue a formal request-for-proposals (RFP) from the parties and others as to proposed questions to go into the ArbCom-sponsored RfC. I would propose that a new workshop be created for doing this (start with a clean slate) and that it have a preamble that clearly specifies the objective, the nature of proposals that are being solicited (questions for the RfC), and the nature of proposals that aren’t (‘shoot so-n-so at dawn’). I also suggest that the key to success in this process is for the proceedings to be closely monitored and moderated, and that we get through this RFP fairly quickly—maybe a flexible objective of concluding after around two weeks, subject to revision if needed. Greg L (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• May I suggest that perhaps enlist the assistance of wikipedians skilled at conducting surveys and analysing results. We need to avoid all the problems of open-ended or loaded questions, and have only a very minimum of proposals which do not give a 'binary' output. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius, if you know such specialists, bring ’em on. I’ve taken the liberty to copy your post and this response from Arthur’s talk page to Talk:Workshop, here. Greg L (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orbit (dynamics)

Hi. You have removed : "Multiplier of orbit is used to check stability of orbit.". Is it not true ? Could you tell me what is the reson of removing this statement ? Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not for continuous orbits, where you put the comment. It makes more sense for orbits in discrete dynamic systems, where I'm not sure whether it's correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is about discrete , but I have put it in the section : stability of orbit, which IMHO is about orbits, not only about continuous. --Adam majewski (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That section needs revamping. "Closed", an important concept in that section, only makes sense for continuous systems. Perhaps a total rewrite would be in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it's not exactly true for discrete orbits, either. Even ignoring the fact that a discrete map can correspond to a continuous map with an irrational period, an orbit is stable if ||Δ f(x + t(x))|| < ||Δf(x)|| for some continuous function t of x. For a discrete map, if t is an integer constant function, this corresponds to

${\frac {\partial f(x+t)}{\partial f(x)}}\leq 1.$

Not much of a product, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are online references for multiplier :

• from www.bifurcation.de
• from Elmer G. Wiens

If it is not enough I can send book references. --Adam majewski (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it's appropriate, but the wikilink is wrong. You can put it back without a wikilink and with a reference to those papers, and I'll leave it to subject experts to determine whether the notation is non-standard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"... the wikilink is wrong" It is a link to article where is definition of multiplier of orbit. I think that there is no other article in wikipedia about it. Maybe I'm wrong but I have not found better one. On this page is one reference. I thought ( maybe wrong) that it is well known. You are right that reference should be there.

"You can put it back..." Thx but I think that I should not revert edits made by admin, because I have a deep respect for admins. If you think that your edit maybe reverted please do it.

"a reference to those papers" Here is also book another book reference: Chaos and Fractals: The Mathematics Behind the Computer Graphics (Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics) by Robert L. Devaney (Editor), Linda Keen (Editor) Publisher: American Mathematical Society; edition (2 Jul 1992) ISBN-10: 0821801376 ISBN-13: 978-0821801376 page 78

multiplication

Hi, You have removed my edits : The product of irreducible divisors. Can you tell me why do you think that it is "inappropriate or meaningless" ? You can see example of using such notation in paper : Groebner Basis, Resultants and the generalized Mandelbrot Set. Young Hee Geum

Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Your two products are unrelated, and the second requires more explanation than should be in this article.
2. The first makes some sense, but probably should refer to a different concept of irreducible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to the product in unique factorization domain might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Your two products are unrelated... Please look at the paper. IMHO they are closely related.

If you think that first example make sense and only reference can be changed, why you have not done it instead of removing all edits ? --Adam majewski (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the paper. Neither product actually appears in that notation....

And I'm not sure "unique factorization" adds to the multiplication article. Perhaps, if we had a factorization article? Ah, we do, but it's not yet linked from multiplication. Fixed, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the paper. Neither product actually appears in that notation....

See page 2 , function Rc,k(z)--Adam majewski (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OOPS. It's page 3, and too specialized for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, its page 3 ( sorry). "too specialized for this article". Hm. I do not agree with it but you are the administrator. Regards. --Adam majewski (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not an adminstrative question; it's a content question, and I have no more authority over that than any editor. If you disagree with my assertion, please bring it up on the talk page of the article or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Thinking about it, it may be an interesting question on iteration of polynomial functions, but it's not multiplication. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at :

Wikipedia:Reference_desk where the discussion was.

I have put this edits here ( section : capital Pi notation) because I have not found explanation of this capital pi notation. Try to find it and you will (probably ) see that it's a problem

Something about iteration of polynomial is in wikibooks. ( Please do not revert everything (:-))--Adam majewski (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm certain it shouldn't be in the multiplication article. The statements required to explain the underlying notation require an entire new article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

About capital Pi notation ? --Adam majewski (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The explanation of what the individual items mean would take more space than is currently used in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Will you do it ? (:-))--Adam majewski (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really relevant, to multiplication, only to unusual uses of the Pi notation, although

$x^{n}-1=\prod _{d\mid n}\Phi _{d}(x),$

where the Φ represent the cyclotomic polynomials, may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

May math knowlage about it is near zero. I can only see that unusual uses of the Pi notation is there. I think that some explanation or link to this article ( maybe also wikibooks example ) can be in section about capital Pi notation. Maybe some ease explanation of this notation should be in article about cyclotomic polynomials ? Thx for discussion. (:-)--Adam majewski (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Amway

Arthur, that wholesale revert was completely uncalled for and frankly brings into question "good faith" on your part. The history section was all corrected and sourced, the product info and award information was all sourced. When it was an "amway-related" source in a handful of cases it was convenience links that included links to original sources. As I stated in the summary it needed some cleaning up. Deleting the lot was unjustified and little more than obnoxious and I'm more than a litte pi**ed off. I'm reverting so that cleanup work can continue. If you have problems with particular issues then please raise them in talk.--Insider201283 (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It needed cleaning up. However, none of the changes to the lede was even marginally acceptable, and much of the details added ("childhood friends"...) would be unacceptable even if properly sourced. We, quite properly, cannot include anti-Amway sites as references — but that means WP:UNDUE means we cannot use Amway sites as references, even if otherwise allowable under WP:SELF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, what are you talking about? If some rewording is necessary, then fine, but the great majority of the sources I've used are independent sources. Things like "childhood friends" are rather minor issues easily corrected - though I'm not sure why it's unacceptable, but I certainly have no great attachment to the phrase. The version you keep reverting to has factually wrong unsourced material in it, and you prefer that? C'mon on. Please let's continue the discussion in Talk:Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As I thought - "friends since childhood" wasn't even my phrase. It was already in the article, I just moved things around to improve grammar and readibility. It's been in the article for aeons, it's in the article when you revert it - so giving that a reason for reverting is more than a little specious. I'll assume you hadn't actually read the earlier version. I'm happy to reword it, any suggestions? It would seem to fit into the "historical context" guidelines suggested by the Wikipedia Company's project. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

2050

Could you please consider leaving an explanation here. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

214 (number) listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 214 (number). Since you had some involvement with the 214 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)TheFreeloader (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine

About Patrick Haseldine: anyone stating there are no conspiracies, has a definition of "conspiracy" which I don't share. Most conspiracies are irrelevant (on the level of "who vomited on my garden?"). So yes, I believe in conspiracies, as far as I know everyone believes in conspiracies. Perhaps Patrick Haseldine is a Conspiracy theorist, but if you want to say that (and you do, because you added Category:Conspiracy theorists to his lemma) you should provide evidence, as required by WP:BLP. his saying he believes in conspiracies seems adquate may convince you, it doesn't convince me. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If he (as Wikipedia editor) says he (as the subject of the article) is a conspiracy theorist, that seems adequate to me, per WP:SELF. We (OTRS) have already established that the Wikipedia editor is the subject, or his posting his letters to the editor would have been a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Erik, if you are still unsure, take a look at the current COI case. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I ignore editors who use font size as a compensation for their (assumed, by me) less developed reproduction organs. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what a Wikipedia editor says. An alleged copyright violation does not prove that the alleged violator is the copyright holder. I can write "Ich bin ein Berliner", it doesn't prove that I am John F. Kennedy. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In case there is even a scintilla of doubt on this issue, I am not nor have I ever been a conspiracy theorist. All I did was to write a series of letters to The Guardian between 7 December 1989 and 22 December 1993 accusing apartheid South Africa of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing: "Finger of suspicion". The Guardian. December 7, 1989., "Lockerbie and beyond". The Guardian. May 16, 1990., "Missing diplomatic links and the Lockerbie tragedy". The Guardian. August 5, 1991., "The bearer of strange tidings from Islamic Jihad". The Guardian. August 10, 1991., "Justice after Lockerbie". The Guardian. December 21, 1991."Motives and a Libyan connection that's far too neat". The Guardian. March 16, 1992., "ANC as the fall-guys for the Lockerbie bombing". The Guardian. April 22, 1992. and "Flight path". The Guardian. December 22, 1993. The first letter was two years before the two Libyans were indicted (November 1991) and the last pre-dated their trial, which started in May 2000, by seven years. Mine cannot therefore by any stretch of a definition be described as a conspiracy theory. Surely, alternative theory is more appropriate. I leave it to you to remove the "conspiracy theorist" category from my biography, with the appropriate degree of alacrity!---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that settles it, User:Arthur Rubin misunderstood User:PJHaseldine. I can't help but note that he would have to be rather disconnected from reality to reach his conclusion based on PJHaseldines words. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine would have to be pretty disconnected from reality to reach his conclusions. Still, it appears he's not a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Patrick Haseldine knows more on foreign relations than we do. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. How much of what he knows is correct (or consistent with reliable sources) is still open to question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to that open question, I can vouch that all of my knowledge is correct and is consistent with reliable sources.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

@Arthur: Which sources do you consider reliable? As far as I know the so called evidence was mainly a bribed shopkeeper. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence for the theory that South Africa bombed flight 103, they evidence may be circumstantial, but a bought testimony is worth less. As far as I can tell your other edits are of a similar quality. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain

Why did you revert here? I noticed the edit, and checked it out. It seems that he is a professor in theoretical physics. Does "reader" mean something specific in British English that I'm unaware of?—Kww(talk) 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See wikt:reader definition 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, it appears he is now a professor, although he wasn't when that article was written. My mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur your question: Anyone can start a Hall of Fame

Arthur it is very true what you say anyone can. The truth is most haven't in the community for different professional reasons.

We have just launched and already we have on our Executive Selection Committee for the Seduction Hall of Fame a who's who of the elite dating coaches.

They include Cliff from Cliff's List, Swinggcat, Matador from VH-1's the pick-up artist, Payton Kane from the Seduce and Conquer Radio show (David DeAngelo's Dating Guru Series), The Player from Becomeaplayer.com, Donovan from the Seduction Chronicles, and many more elite professional coaches/community personalities in the field.

This was all through word of mouth, we haven't even started to call up the members that have already been inducted.

I have very little to gain from promoting others. I have been a coach for 15 years most of that time working for free. We just appreciate the work that these men do to change the dating landscape for men.

I can appreciate that it is difficult for Wikipedia to quantify the Seduction Community, as well as your job must be extremely difficult to keep track of spammers, and prejudiced posters.

That is why we have gone through a very thorough procedure to create the best way to quantify the coaches who have made such an impact.

We have an Executive Selection Committee they choose the names on the ballot, and the public votes on who is the inductee.

Sort of like the Academy Awards and the People's Choice rolled into one.

Only elite members of the community can be on the Executive Selection Committee.. and that number is growing by the day. We will have the most respected panel with even factions that despise each other on the ESC. Our policy is "All baggage is left at the door."

This is a seduction community project and the community is the most important part. You can see our Rules and regulations Policy at http://www.seductionhalloffame.com/Hall/hallrulesregs.html .

I must admit I am no Wikipedia expert I leave it to your sound knowledge, I am an expert in a different field.

If you have any questions or anyone else for that matter they can contact me at webmaster at seductionhalloffame dot the com.

We can document and change anything that the community at large suggests. This is a project for the people, to serve them best. We have gone to great lengths to make it that way.

We work for the people and from an unbiased platform as I will have little to gain.

Arthur if I can help you in any way please let me know.

Orlandomac (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For a note in the main seduction community article, we need a source outside the community that your hall of fame is notable. (It's possible there is a reliable source (as we define it) within the community, but the odds are against it.) In that case, a paragraph listing the inductees in the seduction community article might be appropriate, with a link to your web site as reference for that fact.

For the individual inductees, the link to your web site isn't helpful, as (1) they are more notable than the "Hall of Fame"< and (2) there is no individual article about the Hall of Fame (nor should there be, IMHO, at this time. I don't think you could honestly write an article which would survive WP:CSD#A7.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We did go out in a recent Cliff's list newsletter http://www.cliffslist.com which is considered one of the most elite in the community. Cliff's List was also the launching pad for David DeAngelo, and many more in the community, and always has been considered a defacto site. Cliff has also agreed to join our Executive Selection Committee going forward. Like I said this site is for the community so we welcome others input.

Orlandomac (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NIST WTC7 Final Report

Authur,

You removed my paragraph on NIST WTC7 Final Report under 9/11 Truth Movement, NIST Report Reaction section. You label it a lie.

What is a lie? The reaction was to the draft final report, which I referenced. The reaction is part of the public record, which was posted on the NIST website, which I referenced.

Here is the report: [5]

Page 45 is where the NIST authors explain the period of freefall.

Dwain Deets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookunderneath (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the report, because of PDF incompatabilities, but the intial report did not mention "free fall", and specifically said it took at least twice as long as the free fall time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that you've answered my response given immediately below. Lookunderneath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for considering this. Here is the paragraph in middle of page 45 of that PDF:

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."

You stated correctly, the initial report did not mention "free fall." Even as late as August 2008, the draft final report said, "40% slower than free fall." Only in the November 2008 Final Report, where the report defined three stages, did the NIST authors say Stage 2 was in free fall.

Dwain Deets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookunderneath (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tilt

Hi Arthur, Just a quick note as an outside observer in the interest of an informed discussion. You might want to check out Therese McAllister's NIST presentation (PDF here). She found there to be an at least 20 degree tilt to WTC2 (slide 18).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected my comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Wildbear's suggestion reminds me of some of my early work on the article. I think the article would be better if it went through the progressive collapse step by step, starting with the tilt and why it didn't continue. Bazant's and Seffen's articles (as far as I can tell) provide the basis for such an account. You just need a brief summary in clear prose. I think editors need to keep in mind that readers come to this article with questions they are hoping to find answers to. You may as well give them what you can.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:911ct

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Sloane (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sterling Beaumon

I don't understand why you deleted my entry for this child actor in the 1995 birth list. I think having the lead role in a popular 2008 children's movie and making guest appearances on popular TV shows is noteworthy. Fighting for Justice (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. You might as well re-add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Morgellons

I noticed you undid my edits to the Mogellons Article where I corrected factual and attidudinal mistakes regarding "Delusional Parasitosis".

As "Delusional Parasitosis" has been officially renounced as a diagnosis by the pertinent U.S. Government agency, I wonder what your rationale is?

Ombart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombart (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a source that DP has been officially renounced, only that it is no longer the primary explanation on the CDC web site. I'd accept that change, but morgelleons-research.org is not a reliable source for anything, including papers reprinted from elsewhere.

You also don't have a source to contradict the sourced assertion that the generally accepted explanation for the syndrome is DP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur,

I have added a link to the official CDC letter staing that the cause is now considered unknown. This signifies by deduction that Morgellons is NOT to be explained by DP. According to the CDC, doctors shall stay open-minded whether DP or mites or a new fungus or agrobacterium or anything else is the culprit.

Please note that the whole prior entry -scientifically- it is currently a disgrace: e.g. it contains entirely unsourced (IMHO unprovable) claims that Morgellons "can be treated and cured" (?!) (by reference to a treatment for DP). References to DP are based on journalistic opinions and even those are represented with distortion.

If I had the time I would work the article over, but at least the first paragraph now is of a better quality.

Bart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombart (talk • contribs)

Your additions aren't supported by the sources. DP has been removed from the parasitological section of the CDC web site, without comment as to whether it is considered a psychiatric disorder. I did (I think) remove the misleading statements about treatments for DP from the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw you removed the reference to the unproven / unreferenced claim of successful treatment.

While this is some improvement, please note that it is also wrong to say that there is a "current scientific consensus": a major investigation into the causes of Morgellons has been started due to evidence of human suffering.

Bart —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombart (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is false. There is no credible "evidence of human suffering." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. There IS evidence, if you scan the multitude of source documents already attached to the artice.--Ombart (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "whether it doesn't matter what I say my doctor says": It was you who claimed that no doctor outside that US organisation thought that Morgellons are a medical condition other than "delusional parasitosis". Which claim of yours is clearly falsified by my expericence.

You yourself currently appear to be engaged in an edit war (not only with me) according to the reverts you have made on Morgellons. You have done several ill-fouded reversals in the past few days, thwarting all efforts to provide a more rational view without unfounded claims of any "scientific consensus" about "delusional parasitosis" or unnamed "other illnesses" which you claim exists despite ample evidence to the contrary and a clear dissens on what that illness may be. And, moreover, prejudicing a major scientific effort just haveing started by the CDC!.

Can you please shed some light on your interest in the matter?

I for my part I am a patient severly afflicted by precisely those syptoms which make up the current proposed symptom list: namely lesions with thin strings growing and moving painfully at surprising speeds under the skin. Luckily my European doctor is a parasitologist and not a member of another branch of medicine (such as psychology) which would profit commercially from promoting a false diagnosis. So what are you? --Ombart (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter what I say my doctor says" was not my comment, but it's true that you cannot quote your doctor in the article unless he's a recognized expert. I didn't see that you were doing that, however.

On the other hand, it is, as far as I can tell, still the scientific and medical consensus that "Morgellons" symptoms are either delusional (which, as you well know, does not mean imaginary) or are symptoms of some already known disease (or diseases). That the CDC is investigating the disease/syndrome/illness doesn't mean that there isn't an existing consensus.

The MRF is not restricted to US persons. (It seems to have very few medical doctors, but that may be changing.) As of late 2008, there had been no published reports of Morgellons by practicing doctors who were not associated with the MRF, although I'm willing to accept the possibility that some of them joined the MRF after the diagnosis.

And my interest in this is in attempting to prevent pseudo-research from getting into the article. There are still no reports of (medical) fiber experts getting access to the fibers. There are still few, if any, reports of experts in skin conditions (including dermatologists) having diagnosed the condition.

Perhaps the CDC study will solve some of these problems.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not responded what your specific interest in the field is, other than some general pseudo research reference, which I find very suspicious. I will invoke the resolution process to find out if Wikipedia shall lend the credibility of "accepted scientific consensus" on an issue which is for the first time being researched with scientific methods. The support of an as yet unscientific / uncitable "scientific consensus" is sheer sophistry and most unhelpful for anyone who reads the article to gain knowledge.--Ombart (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't prove scientific consensus. However, I can't cite a scientific paper to the contrary, and you haven't cited a scientific paper to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

QED. If you cannot prove "scientific consensus" it should not be in the article -> I will invoke Conflict Resolution. Your second sentence is sophistry again, because I do not have to write something to the contrary, I can just stick to citable facts. One such fact is that the CDC says that a scientific investigation is warranted and underway. Which is what I wrote.

BTW: You still have not yet provided appropriate disclosure of your personal interest in this field.--Ombart (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I cannot prove scientific consensus. I can prove that there are scientific papers which state that, and I do not know of, and you have not produced, scientific papers to the contrary. That looks like evidence of scientific consensus to me. However, we could say "scientists generally belive" that Morgollons is DP[1][2][3][4]...[10].

And I have no interest in the field, other than trying to eliminate pseudoscience from Wikipedia, and (to the extent possible) in the real world. If you have fibers, you might suggest that your doctor send samples of them to a reputable laboratory. So far, no such (reputable) laboratory has been reported to have found non-cloth fibers. Perhaps you (or your doctor) could become famous. I decline to reveal my employer, except to note that (to the best of my knowledge) they have no medical-related products or services. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan Daily as a reliable source?

I saw your recent edit "Israel: reliable source? Reads like an editorial, and contained gratuitous slander" on the "9/11 advance-knowledge debate"‎ article. I just wanted to mention that I have my own doubts as to whether Pakistan Daily should be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. They seem to publish a lot of questionable material. A couple weeks ago, I did a search on Pakistan Daily in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Archives but didn't find anything. When I have time, I'm going to try to look into it further. This was just an FYI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the subtext within the comment and tag, I was not questioning the Pakistan Daily, in general, as a reliable source. It's just that that particular article read like an editorial, and editorials, even in otherwise reliable sources, are not "reliable" toward the truth of the assertions, only toward notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I do wonder about the reliablity of this source in general on statements of fact. A lot of their articles read like editorials. This one [6] refers to Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Feith as "Zionist Israel-firsters" and Israel as the "Israeli racist-Zionist state". I can't imagine any reliable source here in the West using that language in a straight news story. It also states things such as "Dennis Ross should not be allowed to occupy any position in the US government. He is an agent of a foreign government" which is clearly an opinion. Like I said, I want to do some more research, but at some point I may raise this issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, they allow anyone to submit articles [7] although they state that "hate related articles will not be accepted." I am unclear as how to tell whether an article is written by their staff or by the public.

They do seem to have anti-Israel, if not anti-Semetic bias. This article [8] claims that "USA Jewry" were "declaring war on America’s dispossessed majority, white Christian Americans" and "Jews fear and will do anything in their power, (and they now have all the power in America), to eradicate any semblance of nationalism emanating from white Christian Americans." This article [9] appears to be a Holocaust denial article, "Jew conceives HOLOCAUST Factory / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Stories to Deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Days to deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Laws to deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST evidence to deflect Guilt / Fabricate HOLOCAUST Payments to deflect Guilt"

Regarding other issues, in the article titled "Obama is Two-Faced Liar" [10] they claim "President Barack Obama treated [Republicans] like dirt, didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package". Hardly neutral or fair writing.

In this article, they claim that Barack Obama has the "psychopathic nature of the ideal Jewish puppet" [11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult (for me, anyway) to trace whether the IWrite submission is the normal submission method for the ... publication. If it is, daily.pk should not be considered reliable under any circumstances.

As for Obama, although I tend to agree that Bush and Obama are "Two-Faced Liar"s, that also probably isn't suitable for publication here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:) I hear ya! Anyway, I've raised the issue here [12]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You unable to find any better algorithm

Hi,

You could not find any better algorithm for practical usage in organic chemistry. Why you deleted only one possible algorithm?--Tim32 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not relevant. The fact is that we can't find anyone reliable to say that it is a practical alogorithm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the fact is that you are not chemist and so you unable to understand which alogorithm is necessary for chemistry! So you unable to understand which alogorithm is reliable for chemistry as well!--Tim32 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the algorithm is reliable (which I am qualified to determine), but whether the source for the algorithm is reliable. We've pretty much decided that it isn't. To confirm, you would have to supply a review of the paper, references to the paper, or evidence that the authors meet the criteria in WP:V#SELF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is not self-published material.--Tim32 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cited in Arjeh M. Cohen , Jan Willem Knopper and Scott H. Murray, Automatic Proof of Graph Nonisomorphism, Mathematics in Computer Science, 2008, doi 10.1007/s11786-008-0052-8 --Tim32 (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones websites

Hi

My fault no doubt and you are correct regarding: "Infobox format should not dominate content"

However, I can't think of anywhere else in a wiki article some DJs multiple websites are included in the info box - one would surely do. I can't see the point personally, perhaps you might give a rational? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 05:55, March 8, 2009

I think the fact that he has that many websites might, itself, be of interest to people, although not precisely notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

About Alex Jones and your gradeschool 'conspiracy theory' charges

I might suggest you turn on the news once in a while. Open talk of a New World order,a new world currency, Gordon Brown talking about the 'New World Order', FEMA camps being openly announced in legislation, the economy going in the tank. Exactly what has Alex been 'conspiracy theorizing' about, you stupid little troglodyte? Oh, but please, do not interrupt me on your petty little power-trip as a Wikipedian - and take some solace in the fact that you can call me a 'tin-foil hat' in return while offering no sensible or reasonable counter-argument. Might I suggest you stop trolling on articles where you have a personal conflict of interest and thus can not be expected to pass adequate judgment.84.28.82.149 (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been warned about personal attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

... must ... resist ... temptation to reply to his "living under a bridge" comment referring to others who live under bridges and eat goats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Be strong. OTOH, if you wanna play whack-a-mole... (well, it rhymes with "mole"), go for it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Gen Jones

Take a second to read through the discussion pages on Generation Jones and Baby Boomer. You will see that Treading Water and Wendy are strong supporters of the Generation Jones concept, and strongly support their and Pontell's view. The rest of us would love to find some compromise language, especially on the Boomer Page.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It also appears that one of them is a duplicate of a certain retired editor. If it's a name change, that would be one thing, but it looks as if an editor who excercized the right to vanish has returned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re spanning

uhh, wouldn't it fit under http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/span#Verb under #2? (grade school education here, but seems right to me) Nar Matteru (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why make trouble for people who think it only means definition 1? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a huge step down from it "not making sense"

I didn't really care about the wording, just curious as to how/why you guys were against it. Personally I think both phrasings *sound* awkward. But that's not a very professional opinion at any rate :) Nar Matteru (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"... spanning from ... to ...." is just wrong.

"... spanning ... to ...." seems marginally acceptable, although somewhat confusing.

"... that ran from ... through ...." seems the best choice.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RCU or a retraction, please

I dare you to ask for a checkuser, in re the summary of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Haseldine&diff=274157161 As far as I know Patrick is in Essex, I am in Groningen. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to determine whether you're a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. As for the reasoning, you are the only editor in the history of the article to support removal of Category:Conspiracy theorists from the article, other than the subject and his known clones. Others have mentioned it momentarily, but have decided that the category should remain after reading the article. Your interpretation of my comments as stating that I do not have evidence to support the category is misleading, and seems to consist of a paraphrase of the subject's stating that the removal of his letters from Wikipedia remove the evidence that he's notable that he supports that conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a meatpuppet either. I don't know Patrick personally, but have known him by name for a long time (though initially that was because it sounds a bit like Heseltine; Dutch and Low Saxon didn't participate in the great vowel shift).

Are you sure your accusation that Patrick would be a conspiracy theorist isn't a case of psychological projection? Because, if I were a sock or meatpuppet, the organisation would be trying to remain secret. Erik Warmelink (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the talk page, quoting part of the last section of the article. It says he promoted a conspiracy theory. Does that not make him a conspiracy theorist? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not good enough. Erik Warmelink asked for a WP:RCU or a retraction. He has received neither. I would also like an apology from Arthur Rubin for maligning me in this way and for continuing to categorise me as a conspiracy theorist, despite my protestations.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@Arthur: Please read the article conspiracy theory, especially including attempting to hide the existence of the group. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That may be in the current article conspiracy theory, but it's not a stable part of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We have already verified that PH is the originator and proponent of this theory. While he himself may prefer to call it an "alternate theory", others don't distinguish between the terms "conspiracy theory" and "alternate theory", both of which convey non mainstream thinking. Secondly, take a look at [[Category:Conspiracy_theorists]], particularly the part that says: "For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories." Lastly, inclusion of this category has been vetted by Ed Johnson, the Administrator who investigated the last COI case against him. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

@font: Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. As an example you and I can edit it. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

@Arthur: It is part of one of your versions of the article, which you defended. Erik Warmelink (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was added 13 November 2008 based on wikt:conspiracy theory. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would react as User:Arthur Rubin. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake if I defended the statement in Conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, if PH exists, he's a conspiracy theorist under our definitions and the real-world definitions (promoting a conspiracy theory in regard flight 103). As for "hidden", their alleged lack of success in hiding it doesn't mean they didn't try. (In fact, there's no reported evidence of the association with South Africa, other than PH's observations and clones thereof, so it might still be considered a conspiracy.) Thinking about it, there's no reason for me to believe you a sock puppet, other than that PH has had many, himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what claim do you defend? That I am your ("our definitions") or PH's sockpuppetmaster ("if PH exists") or something else? As far as I know every reliable source assumes a conspiracy, however not all sources are convinced that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (or even any Libyan official) was part of the conspiracy. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

School bullying

Why did you revert my edits ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.204.139 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The first change was just a reordering of the sentence, which didn't seem helpful.

The second section had misspelled words, and "can" be effective doesn't need the caveat "if implemented correctly".

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hi there

I edited an extension to your article on the zero numeral but got deleted AND I GOT NO FEEDBACK do u have something to do with it? cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfcar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) This is what you wrote: [[The Indian numerals and the positional number system were introduced to the Islamic civilization by Al-Khwarizmi, the founder of several branches and basic concepts of mathematics. Al-Khwarizmi's book on arithmetic synthesized Greek and Hindu knowledge and also contained his own fundamental contribution to mathematics and science including an explanation of the use of zero. It was only centuries later, in the 12th century, that the Indian numeral system was introduced to the Western world through Latin translations of his Arithmetic.]] This is what I added The Indian numerals were replaced by the Muslims by another set of numerals which includes this time the newly invented symbol for arabic Ciphr (Sifr) which translates later "zero" and which since then owing to its usefulness and compactness spread all over the world. With the representation of the zero the decimal system which belongs to all Human kind (set of fingers) was adopted and compactly represented through changing the position of the numerals to represent powers of the base of ten instead of continuously using new symbols.(see the Roman numeral system). Mohammed ibn Musa Al-Khawarizmi born around 780 AD, and one of the islamic scientists members of the House of Wisdom in Bagdad and who is the founder of the science of Algebra and the inventor of the positioning system wrote a book on "Fractions and Equations Solving" in which he was the first to show the solution to the equations of the fourth degree, an approximation of the number Pi or π , the decimal system and the use of the zero therefore. It was only centuries later, in the 12th century, that the Arabic numeral system was introduced to the Western world through Latin translations of Al-Khawarizmi's book on Algebra (and Equations Solving) originally Kitab Aljibr wa AlMouqabala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfcar (talk • contribs) 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The information is unsourced, whether or not accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

2012

Why did you revert my edit on 2012? ROC was established on 1-1-1912 RayYung (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anniversaries are not listed in year articles, unless there are present, documented, plans to commemmorate them, and usually not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Warel banned?

Re the edit summary of [13], Warel does not appear to be banned. Please clarify. --C S (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He had been banned in 2006, but that ban was overturned/ Reverting his edits had been specifically made exempt from 3RR, even if not pure vandalism. Sometimes the references for his edits were very difficult to verify, and, as almost all of them had been inappropriate, it was specified they were presumed inappropriate unless verified. I believe the discussion was in ANI and WT:MATH threads around April 2006.

It's possible that he's since been banned under another name without the connection having been made, but I don't have proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dyson's transform deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dyson's transform, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I have added material to the article to address your concerns. --Uncia (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Luigi Masi

His page has been up since March 2008 when he toured with Sugababes and then in May/June when he toured alongside Girls Aloud. Both are the UK's 2 LARGEST bands. If that doesn't consitute "big" bands then I don't know what is. Also he has a proper website? http://www.luigimasi.com/ and he has released song available on iTunes which charted in the UK and you can check with MusicWeek. You can also check The Saturdays, Sugababes, Girls Aloud wiki pages for further proof. What more do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutyaismyrealgirl (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, don't consider touring with a band being notable, and WP:BAND doesn't specify, even if it is a national tour. (You only quote the websites of the bands he tours with for the statement that he toured with them, which clearly isn't adequate to protect it for deletion, but it might, arguably, protect it from speedy deletion.) As for whether iTunes charting is relevant to WP:BAND#2, I would tend to say "no", but you didn't claim that in the article. You didn't quote MusicWeek, but, if you did, we've have to check carefully whether the reference falls under the exception in WP:BAND#1. Still, either the claim that the iTunes song was charted, or a relevant, referenced, quote from MusicWeek, should protect the article from speedy deletion. If I'm still on Wikipedia, it will be tagged for deletion, together with his song and album. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. I understand. Thank you. (Heavyannie (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

Intelligence

Why do you keep removing sourced material from the Psychometry section of the article? The material is directly from James Flynn himself. Full Shunyata (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all misplaced. It should be in the controversy subsection, not the Psychometry section; and appears to be given WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing my misunderstanding up. I agree that it would be better suited in a different section of the article and does appear to be longer than section it criticizes. Full Shunyata (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reason why you removed the "Theological Definitions" subsection of the Intelligence article? Ogicu812 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bundling

When you list a bunch of articles that have the exact same rationale and are closely related to each other, it would be a good idea to bundle them. When you do that, it saves a lot of time for someone having to insert the same rationale into several different discussions. If you have any trouble, you can see WP:BUNDLE. Even though that is for AfD, it works the same way. Tavix (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In WP:RFD, using individual tags seems to be helpful, as there is a mark added. If there were a {{Rfd2x}} which would add reference tags as in {{Rfd2}}. but use a ";" for the opening.... I'll comment there, and perhaps we can get a suggested format for multiple nominations. There are suggested formats for WP:CFD and WP:TFD, in addition to WP:AFD, but none for WP:RFD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pickup artist

I wasn't experimenting....I was adding to the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSocialArtist (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you weren't. You were redefining the term, using entirely WP:PEACOCK material. That seems appropriate, somehow, on the talk pages, but there's credible source anywhere for your additons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Favour

Hi there Arthur. Thanks for this - it's exactly what I wanted. Is there any chance you could do something similar for day-month mark up? A pro-day month mark up proposal is all we're missing now. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem

I feel that you report even my good articles just because you don't like me. That's not nice.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiramisoo (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All of your articles, categories, templates, redirects, etc. that I report, I feel do not improve Wikipedia. Others may differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Limit (mathematics)

My mistake about the student-generated handout. That was stupid on my part. I must not have been paying any attention. Actually, I was looking for a link with an edu. As for the relevance, I suppose I would have to agree, though there is no article on limits to infinity. I feel as if it would be relevant to an article specifically on limits to infinity, but since there is not, I would have to admit that you are correct. I guess I will have to be more cautious and probably stay away from the math pages until I actually know more. Erimaxbau (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pickup Artist

my apologies for getting that edit back to front :) at least I noted down on the talk page what I was doing so you did know what I meant to do! lol Mathmo ^Talk 03:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

baby boomers

I have made a pitch for some language on the baby boomer article that is intended to solve the stalemate with the Generation Jones consortium. If you want to weigh in...? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss these issues on the talk pages, Arthur Rubin, but you seem to either not read them or just completely ignore what have been well-reasoned and documented arguments. You have repeatedly exhibited this behavior, and made numerous edits which reflect that you are not knowledgable about generational issues. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but it is obviously true, and I ask you to reseach these topics before just making your quick edits and reversions. And no, I am not the several digit number user that you referenced...I only edit on Wikipedia as Treading Water, and always am signed in, so any edits not made by Treadingwater are not mine. I will take some time and re-write some of this this weekend in an attempt to find concensus and avoid these time-wasting edit wars.TreadingWater (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to discuss the issues, but you refuse to accept that your view on the issues is not the only one. It may be generally accepted (although I have my doubts), but K's approach seems a reasonable compromise for the moment, until you can provide sources that your position is generally accepted. Ledes should not have unsourced contraversial statements, and your version does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: I’m concerned about your behavior on Wikipedia, and offer my thoughts here in a constructive spirit. I quickly wrote a few thoughts here yesterday, but am writing more now, when I have more time.

One of my main concerns is that you edit articles about topics which you have only limited knowledge about, and ignore the opinions of more knowledgeable editors. I see that you edit a huge number of articles on Wikipedia, and you can’t be expected to be knowledgeable about so many different topics, but your approach results in too much inaccuracy in Wiki articles.

For example, you re-directed the slang word “jonesing” to “drug addiction” even though no etymologist anywhere would agree with that. You changed an article about a company which targets Boomers and GenJonesers—BOOMj—to say that they don’t target Jonesers, even though quick research would have shown you they explicitly do. You continually edited a Boomer page from saying “many” experts to saying “one” expert believes in the GenJones construct even though a long list of such experts, along with references, was pointed out to you several times. You claim that the GenJones birth years of 1954-1965 are in dispute, when no such dispute, in fact, exists whatsoever. You’ve made numerous edits to generations articles which reveal you clearly have very limited knowledge about cultural generations. I see the same pattern of this behavior in a wide variety of other articles you edit.

What is most concerning about this behavior is that even when it is pointed out to you that your edits are factually incorrect, you repeatedly ignore the facts and just keep reverting. Ironic, when juxtaposed with your scolding me for performing “a large number of reversions in content disputes” when that is exactly what you do with so many editors on so many articles. By contrast, I at least only edit articles about topics which I am knowledgable about.

I would think administrators, such as yourself, would be very clear on what is appropriate editing. I have not, at this point, looked into what is involved in becoming an administrator, nor into how to have those rights removed from a current administrator, but I assume there must be some relatively high standard of editing which is expected from administrators. I am nicely asking you to consider the impact your editing is having on the credibility of Wikipedia. I believe this encyclopedia would be better off if you edited less articles, and took that newfound time to research the facts about articles you do edit. I think this approach would also result in you having far less conflict and disputes than you have now with editors.TreadingWater (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor TreadingWater: Without getting into the substance of the edits to which you refer above (since I probably have not read the articles or the edits in question), I would like to make a general comment.

You state that one of your "main concerns" is that Arthur Rubin "edit[s] articles about topics which [Rubin has] only limited knowledge about [ . . . . ]." You also state: "I see that you [Arthur Rubin] edit a huge number of articles on Wikipedia, and you can’t be expected to be knowledgeable about so many different topics, but your approach results in too much inaccuracy in Wiki articles."

With all due respect, TreadingWater, your concern is misplaced. In Wikipedia, there is no requirement that anyone have any expertise in a given field to edit an article in that field -- even if the field is highly technical in nature.

That means, for example, that if I try to edit Wikipedia articles on mathematics (especially higher mathematics), editor Arthur Rubin (a recognized expert in mathematics) would have no reasonable ground for expressing concern because I am editing a Wikipedia "topic about which I have limited knowledge". (Arthur might well be frustrated, however, by my lack of mathematical knowledge; the void in the area of my brain where the knowledge of higher math should go is certainly immense, I assure you).

Again, as to the other parts of your complaint with Arthur Rubin, I can express no opinion pro or con, as I have not read the edits in question.

Just my two cents worth. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Famspear, I was not trying to imply that there is a "requirement that anyone have any expertise in a given field"; if I was unclear, I aplogize. My point is partly that when someone takes a "jack of all trades, master of none" approach to editing, it increases the chances of innacuracies. But my point really is more about the continual reverting to factually incorrect text even after the facts have been repeatedly pointed out. Someone doesn't need to be an expert, but to ignore facts that experts reference is problematic. Note that Wiki is fine with good faith edits even if they are incorrect, but considers it vandalism if the incorrect info comes from bad faith. When facts are pointed out to an editor, and the editor keeps ignoring those facts, can we say that these edits are in good faith? I think Arthur Rubin has the right to edit any article he wants, even if he knows nothing about that topic, but I don't think it's OK for him , or anyone else, to ignore facts presented by those who do have knowledge about that topic. He should take the time to research and determine if those presented facts are true or not. Or if he's unwilling to take the time to do that research, he should stop reverting to the factually incorrect text.TreadingWater (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

unsourced

If you want to keep the method in the article, simply provide a source. Until you provide a source, the patent that you claim exists would work, then it remains OR.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See that wasn't difficult ;-) Now, if someone deletes it (and I just read the talk page which references said video) then you have a legit complaint. Without the source, it was properly deleted as Original Research. As there appears to be consensus on the talk page that the DVD is reliable, the Method should be kept. Now, my suggestion would be to approach the Magic project and raise your concerns about their guidelines. What is wrong with them? What can be done to fix them? etc. The removal of the information was not an attempt at vandalism, but rather an attempt to ensure that inaccurate information was not added as often happens when dealing with "secrets." Also, can we close the MfD? ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Hi Arthur -- half of your revert was fine; I fixed the other half. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the reason for deleting Best -- that he's not "notable" -- may not be valid either. A source doesn't have to meet WP:N to be an RS. Can you explain your logic? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been a claim that he is an RS, that I can recall. If he were, he (or at least, that fact) would probably be notable. It's a non-peer-reviewed review, so he would have to be an RS per se in order for the source to be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling, he meets WP:PROF [14] and the source in question was pub by Univ of Cali press [15], so I wouldn't presume he's anything other than solidly RS. regard, Middle 8 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2010s article

Just curious as to why you removed my revision. I think it is important to know this--a quote similar to this was in the article several months ago. "It is likely that the last surviving people born in the 19th cen..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.71.70 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Thank you. [16] Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

Is this a sock puppet from steamboat springs or just a new, misguided soul with an axe to grind? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's new. There are enough similarities to warrant checking, but he's focused on that particular judicial canon, adding it to inappropriate articles, rather than adding general implausible comments about pro se abuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser thinks otherwise! Apparently, this was already being investigated, and apparently that user who gave us all that trouble last September had created a whole myriad of ban-evasion socks, of which this "internetreader2" was one. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean it was a misguided soul "and/or" sockpuppet? Steveozone (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

By default, disjunction ("or") is non-mutually-exclusive; hence, "and/or" is a redundancy. In this case, the first disjunct wasn't misguided soul, it was new and misguided soul (conjunction, by default, requires both conjuncts be true). So both disjuncts of my original disjunction are not true. However, if we strike the conjunction of new from that equation, then yes, we get a disjunction where both disjuncts are true in this case, because the person we're talking about here is indeed a misguided soul AND a sockpuppet master. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Watchlist

Hi Arthur, I see on your watchlist you say I'm a probable sockpuppet... I assure you I'm not, please feel free to have an ip check done on me to confirm that. I don't think I've been making categories without rhyme or reason, but please let me know if I have been screwing things up. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Your history certainly doesn't show creation of improbable categories, and I don't recall why I added you. Probably just the coincidence of name with the preceding two "user"s, and edits in Gen X/GenJones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I understand. TastyCakes (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominionism

Could you please explain how Dominionism differs from 9/11 conspiracy theories, the New World Order, the Freemasons, etc.? I mean without relying on the anti-fundamentalist Christian biases that drive the Dominionism cabal to protect it and present it as something other than a retarded conspiracy theory. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not a conspiracy theory. It fails on two points; first, as to not being at all hidden, and second, that the open attempts by fundamentalist Christian leaders to take political action has no illegal aspects, other than possible loss of tax exemption for the religious organizations in question. There may be questions as to whether it exists as an organized activity, but the unorganized activity clearly exists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

re: "hidden" - Who exactly among the "conservative politically-active Christians" actually describe themselves as "Dominionists?" None of them. That is a label Dominionism conspiracy theorists have applied to certain people they think are too politically active (e.g. D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, etc.).

re: "illegal" - I think the Dominionism conspiracy theorists (and the likes of the ACLU and Barry Lynn) would strongly disagree with you on the legality of "the open attempts by fundamentalist Christian leaders to take political action" - both on the attempts being open and being legal.

I don't see any legitimate rationale for treating Dominionism as anything other than a conspiracy theory. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Although your arguments still seem incorrect (who among the "conservative politically-active Christians" deny, or fail to acknowledge, when asked, that this is their goal; it's only the term dominionism that is in question), in conspiracy theories, they would justify it as an example, not in #See Also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very bad behaviour

This is edit warring. You didn't take part to the discussion about these edits and you didn't even write any edit summary for your revert.--pokipsy76 (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You didn't take part in the discussion or editing. And there had been discussion. Furthermore, Wowest's comments are clearly incorrect. Information wasn't removed; it was transfered to list of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mr. "I don't support Black History Month," the entire list of actual, historical conspiracies, which was worked on by many Wikipedians for a long period of time, and which is needed to balance the article, has been removed. Period. The entire article has been turned into "anyone who ever supported any conspiracy theory is nuts" by the medicalization/psychologization of the article, particularly the lede. Therefore, the naming of any individual in any related article is now defamatory and a BLP violation. Wowest (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The few conspiracies which were not already there were merged to list of conspiracy theories. And it reads more as if "anyone who supported conspiracy theories is treated as being nuts", which is true, and may be adequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for "fusion paranoia", which may belong somewhere, but I'm not sure it's a conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambig templates

You tagged Disambig templates with a {{rfd}} tag, but you did not list it at WP:RFD. Could you please complete your nomination? Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I missed one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise Performance Management - article and links?

Arthur - wondering why your felt that EPM was already covered properly under BPM? I went to GREAT lengths ( and many hours) to include extensive wiki and external links detailing the different perspectives, definitions, etc. A key part of my motivation was because the Business Performance Management page was so highly criticized: ( see below - pulled from the BPM header)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

      Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms. Tagged since November 2008.
      Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2009.
      It's written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since November 2008
      This article appears to contain a large number of buzzwords. Please help rewrite this article to make it more concrete and meaningful. 

The justifications for a separate EPM page include:

• the BPM page was so highly criticized that it was easier to start fresh
• ENTERPRISE performance management is increasingly being accepted as a new management concept ( some what distinct from BPM, and NOT as a sub-category)
• I teach MBA level courses on EPM and this article reflects much of the research for, and content from those courses
• AND, Most Importantly, the references and suggested readings are drawn from a broad set of industry, academic, and analyst sources to provide THE most current, NEUTRAL and widely accepted views on performance management.

I would contend that a separate Enterprise Performance Management page is justified, accurate and a service to Wikipedia users. It keeps the pages updated with current thinking and positioning in the marketplace, and the various cross-links that I included provide a useful set of cross references for further reading. I specifically wrote it in a way to avoid all of the criticisms highlighed on the BPM page and deliver a high quality, accurate and neutral perspective to Wikipedia.

How do we go about resolving and getting the EPM page re-established?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliance09 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, your EPM article seems even more compromised in those characteristics than the BPM article. Furthermroe, the list of "players" doesn't seem to come from the source quoted later in the paragraph, so it has additional problems. Perhaps you could develop the article further in a sandbox, announcing your ideas in the talk page of BPM. (Some of the additional links you made to EPM should still only only be to BPM, even if they are distinct concepts.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Arthur - we have been discussing how to best address the questions you raised. Here is a note from one of our performance management qurus. Before we changed a whole lot in the Sandbox/BPM talk process, we thought it would be good to clarify a couple of points. This is an important project for us but my first effort in posting something to Wikipedia, so your guidance in getting a quality article up is appreciated Alliance09 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Mark Conway

Dear Mr. Rubin,

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Frank Buytendijk, Fellow at Oracle Corp., responsible for performance management research and thought leadership, former Research Vice President at analyst firm Gartner (where I was part of the team who defined the concept of performance management), Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management (one of the top management schools in Europe), and author of “Performance Leadership”, one of the standard textbooks in performance management. My apologies for this list of credentials, as we don’t know each other I thought it would make sense.

My colleague Mark Conway has shared with me your concerns about his article on Enterprise Performance Management on Wikipedia. An active user of Wikipedia myself, I am happy to see there are people watching over the quality. You raise two issues. One factual issue is about referencing players in the EPM market, quoting a Gartner analyst study. I have checked this myself, the references are complete and accurate.

The second issue you raise deals with issues around peacock terms, neutrality and factual nature of the article. I have found two places where this could be suspected. The first place is in referencing all the terms used. Given that the article suggests this has more to do with vendor hype than serious differences between the terms, the article actually debunks some hype. Further, although the aticle is written by an Oracle employee, all other important vendors are mentioned, and all leading vendors are singled out. I fail to see the neutrality issue.

Lastly, I also reviewed the “business performance management” article. The term business performance management was mostly used by a company called Hyperion, that doesn’t exist anymore. Most vendors and other parties are using the term “corporate performance management” or “enterprise performance management”. Further, I agree with the Wikipedia warnings in that article.

Would you be able to specify where you find the article compromised?

Best regards,

Frank Buytendijk

2012 edit summary

This is bullocks "Reverted to revision 282549836 by Arthur Rubin; Revert VANDALSIM (edits made against clear consensus) by PL. Weill try to restore constructive edits". Do not engage in personal attacks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an edit made against consensus. It may not be intended to damage Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism must be intended to do damage, and I see no real consensus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus for change, the status quo should be maintained. I'm not the only editor who restored the fiction section to 2012. I already commented (on April 7) that it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRD. The fact that he's restoring intermediate errors when reverting may also be considered, including (3 times) adding 2012 (film) when 2012 already existed, even after being informed on the talk page and on his talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a pompous ass. You, too, restored intermediate errors -- is that vandalism, too? Additionally, none of the stuff you tossed back in is sourced: do so, or I will remove it as unsourced drivel. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, is this tit-for-tat? "fair enough. No sources, here either" -- now that can be considered vandalism. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you insist that sources are necessary for "in fiction" sections, they need to be consistent. I don't think they're necessary, but I agree that removing a tag without resolving the issue is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't see that I restored any errors. In today's run, I carefully edited all except PL's edit back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did fix them. However, had you been called away from the computer right after the revert the incorrect edits could have remained for some time.
The basic point on the sources is that no one can be sure about the factual nature of the claim unless they've read the book or seen the programme. Note, too, that the article on Jojo doesn't even mention 2012. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This brings up a general problem in the fiction sections of WP:YEARS articles; if it's quoted in the article on the film, is that adequate? If not, and it really is present in a book, then the book could be used to source the information. Films and songs (if the lyrics aren't printed) and games (if not in the printed material) may be more problematic, unless mentioned in a review of the item. But that's a general WP:YEARS question, rather than just 2012. I'm perfectly happy with removing items from the "in fiction" sections if we have an article on it, and the article doesn't mention the year. If it's redlinked, I suppose we need a source. But, again, for consistency, that should be brought up at WT:YEARS. Do you want to bring it up? It's your tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, very good point. I asked a non-leading (I hope) question here. Let's see what kind of response we get. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Cs32en (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry homie il stop. i was trying to trick my teacher =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.18.41.5 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RFDs

Your script seems to have failed and not created the discussions for those redirects by Hopiakuta you've nominated for deletion/discussion. Is there a reason you're nominating these for deletion? Redirects are cheap and these seem to be perfectly legitimate targets. –xeno (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide reasons in a bit, although I'll recheck to verify that my reasons are sound, and that Twinkle didn't mark any I didn't intend. Green Police isn't referenced in the article; Anneke Frank is neither her real name nor her name in the film; Transitcamp (or kamp), which I haven't nominated yet, probably should just be retargeted. I've removed broken spaces and underscores from the other redirects as I check them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mm, you're right about the Anneke bit. Perhaps a page disambiguating to the various Anneke's that do exist. Please look at "Green police" again, I made a new target to the actual green police. Your nomination seems to have reverted to the original version that I agree wasn't quite helpful. –xeno (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, only Anneke Frank is left. I retargeted Anneke to Anne, as it is mentioned there, but please check my retargeting of transitcamp. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a disambig out of Anneke (was in the process before you retargeted). Transitcamp seems fine. It's too bad we don't have an article on Anneke Frankenberg, that would be a good target. –xeno (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• On a rather tangentially related matter, in your edit to this redirect you've mentioned in the edit summary that Fr. stands for Friar, not Father. But the actual article and all references therein call it "Father Mathew Bridge". Apparently that's the correct (full) name, and "Fr. Mathew Bridge" just an abbreviation; shouldn't the article be rather moved to the full title, "Father Mathew Bridge", and "Fr. Mathew Bridge" (and "Fr Mathew Bridge") maintaned as redirects instead? -- 89.52.180.101 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, mostly. I don't want to change the references in other articles, but I did change the template containing it (navigation templates should point to articles, not redirects); it's possible it really is known as "Fr. Mathew Bridge" in Holland. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Repressed Memory Reference Request

I tagged that particular phrase because I wanted to find the specific references that made the stated claim without having to peruse the awesome set of references for this article. Thank you for your help.

Sorry I forgot to login before I made the change. Softtest123 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, I wouldn't have simply reverted, even at first, if there hadn't been a number of POV warriors already banned from the subject or from Wikipedia. There may be better studies, but these seem adequate for the purpose of supporting the summary of repressed memory therapy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I just now noticed that you added citations for the supporting claims. Thank you very much. A little real-time error, there. Softtest123 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Harrit Paper

Hi Arhur, I'm following the latest controversy over the publication of the Harrit paper with interest. I notice that a mention of the earlier letter ("14 Points of Agreement") that was also published by Bentham remains in the article. The new one about thermite seems to me to be no less relevant.

I agree that neither publication is very impressive as an event in the engineering community (and neither fit in that section of the article) but both, it seems to me, are notable developments in the history of the controlled demolition hypothesis (or whatever it's being called now). This latest publication is something that the demolitionists are right to be proud of (though it's not going to do all that much for their cause, I think, mainly because of the uncertainties about the provenance of the samples). Those of us who are studying this topic, in any case, see this paper as at least as interesting as Jones's original "Why Indeed?" paper. In general, I'd argue that any serious publication by Jones ("serious" in the sense that he means it, anyway) will normally deserve mention in an article on the history of this idea.

More generally, I'm not sure a blanket dismissal of Bentham's open access journals is warranted. The evidence against them is rather anecdotal so far; these are low-impact journals (as far as I know) but their names are not yet mud.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's also being spammed to the main 911, 911ct, and 911cdt articles. (As well to thermite, and super-thermite, and other terms which seem to appear only in that article (not any of the other articles in the real world). ) Perhaps it should be somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked "nanothermite" in the journal literature and found quite a few studies of an apparently serious non-9/11 nature (though it's obviously a somewhat new technology). Like I say, it belongs in the CD article, probably nowhere else. I don't condone reflexive spamming, of course; but it's probably unavoidable in the encyclopedia that (almost) anyone can edit. Just muck it out, as they say. I'd love to help, but, well...--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why remove?

why remove this? since Philippine elections is really scheduled that date and year? why? The Wandering Traveler (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Recent years, national elections are not notable. (The US elections were added to future years before that guideline was agreed to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New WTC7 material

As the new NIST report of Nov.08 now includes an interesting free-fall theory, I thought it is worth adding it to the official WTC7 page. I'm now looking for users supporting me to create an acceptable version of the article, which is Wiki conform and contains the main facts. I've created a first version in the WTC talk page Talk:World_Trade_Center#WTC7 in the hope to get some feedback. Johninwiki (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

I see that you have deleted the redirect for the numbers 700-799, but i am not sure why. I was halfway through the numbers when I finally realized tha you had deleted all those pages. They were redirects to 700, which provide some short notes on each of them, so I don't see why a redirect is not valid. Please explain why you deleted those pages. Thanks.--Math Champion (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for those redirects, but there's probably no harm in those. However, I don't see the point in creating the redirects. Adding disambig pages for the years, as was done previously, does create harm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Voortle had created the redirects, after being specifically told not to. It seems to be better if you didn't create more without discussion at WT:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. Math Champion (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

School pranks

Yet again you have reverted my edits. I started a discussion on the talk page, but you have ignored it completely and simply reverted again saying something about sourcing.

I am particularly puzzled by your removal of this text: 'When leaving the senior year of an educational institution, the "senior pranks" can become larger and more sophisticated'. What is wrong with that? What, exactly, needs sourcing?

As for the Kancho section, it is tagged (once again) as being "... of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter". I have attempted to fix that situation (three times now) by adding part of the lead section from the Kancho article. If necessary, I could add the same reference as appears in the Kancho article, but I get the funnny feeling that you will simply remove that too.

What is the problem? Do you doubt such things exist? I suppose I am asking you to elaborate on your reasons for continually reverting my additions to the article. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You have supplied no sources for either of your additions to the list of school pranks article in that article. Your rational alternatives are:

1. Add the sections to the talk page, and request sourcing. If sourcing can be obtained, then it can be added to the article.
2. Add the sections to subpages of your user page, and await sourcing.

I'm sure senior prank can be sourced, although no sources have yet been provided. If you insist on adding such material, I suppose I'll have to nominate the article for deletion, as you've been shown it cannot be maintained as a sourced article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1/6 (number)

Why did you blank and redirect the content of this article? I was planning on adding more information and properties of the number. Best, -download | sign! 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For 1/9 (number) as well. -download | sign! 04:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics within the past month, suggesting that fractions weren't appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -download | sign! 05:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How about letting me finish editing before reverting

I am in the middle of a series of edits to Direct tax and would appreciate you waiting until after I stop before challenging. It would also help if you read some of the cites that support my edits. Bracton (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of the cites only support your edits in the view of tax protestors, or are only the views of tax protestors, even when you "cite" court cases. Please work it out on the article talk page first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Large numbers

I read that post and used the {gaps} tag. You are just picking on me because I am not a registered user. My first edit was not correct by using the HTML no-breaking space code, but my second was, but since I don't want to fight with you I'll not edit it again. It was not vandalism because I followed the Wikipedia Manual of Style and specifically the point you linked to. I still think you are wrong, though. Have fun in the sun! 129.241.151.82 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm reverting your edits because it's not a mathematical or scientific context, so the first form (use commas) applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the context then, if I may ask? 129.241.151.82 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical or common usage? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I think Wikipedia should follow international standards, and then we can get the USA to do the same. Toodles! 129.241.151.82 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate reference?

Surely Mr. Rubin, on the page 'U.S. Military Response to 9/11 Attacks', there is at least one link therein that meets your definition of an 'appropriate' reference?

NORAD standdowns or disablings are to be technically unproven until NORAD admits it did so, so tell this username, how does one refer to the topic without it setting off your definition of an 'inappropriate' reference?

These pages are all about the critical faculties, so tell me, what is your opinion of the page referred to above? Any improvements? Any skepticisms you'd care to share? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parserpractice (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet links to Wikipedia articles are always inappropriate. If the reference is appropriate, it should be a Wikipedia link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WTC 7 name edit

Hi Arthur — I'm wondering why you have reverted my edit to the WTC CD CT site. There are several different names for WTC 7 now in this and in other articles ("WTC 7", "WTC7", "7 WTC", "WTC Seven" etc.), and the transclusion helps to keep the name consistent across sections and articles. Regards —  Cs32en  08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, even in that article, all the references should be identical. However, I hadn't read the discussion; after reading it, it seems who should have gotten agreement first, which you hadn't. 9/11 is no place for WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. No idea where the POV issue could be here, but I'll wait for what comes up in the discussion. Regards.  Cs32en  15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

911ct TfD discussion

I have answered to your comment in the TfD discussion on the 911ct supporters template here.  Cs32en  15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

911 articles

Keep up the good work. Do you like barnstars? If so I'll give you one. Yours, Verbal chat 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please don't put the barnstar directly on my user page, though. I prefer to have it placed here and copy it to my user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For reasoned and sensible contributions to the "911" series of articles. Verbal chat 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Almabot

Hello, thanks for notifying me. I stopped the bot and will look into this. 99.33.105.81 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Decade Articles

Hi thanks for notiflying me of what i did to the decade articles and i will look to WP Years first Before i change the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staskiworski (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Physics and Star Trek

Is there a posted or set guideline as wot what technologies are relevant to the Physics and Star Trek article and what technologies are not?

And why am I being accused of vandalism? All that I have done today has been done with intent and in good faith.

Uriel-238 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of vandalism was a mistake; Red matter (Star Trek) was a redlink at the time I checked, and adding redlinks in the #See also section is a mistake. Furthermore, it seemed a rational assumption that "you" were the IP address who added it the first time. If you like, I can apologize, but I changed the uw-vand2 to a uw-test1 as soon as I realized that the article had been created.

In general, the #See also section of an article is for related articles which cannot be worked into the text of the article; the relevant guideline is at [[Wikipedia:Layout#.22See_also.22_section]. I really can't see this one as making sense unless it were included in the article, though. Perhaps you can copy over the Star Trek section of dark matter in fiction, and create a section called "anomolous matter"? Not having seen the film yet, I can't comment as to whether it is sufficiently well-documented so that the article should be merged somewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Originally, Red Matter linked directly to the Star Trek franchise, which I thought was odd and figured I'd fix it. It seems I worked the wrong way, creating the links with intent to create the article.

All is well. Uriel-238 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision 289030446

Why did you change it back? I don't see the reason for it. I'm not going to change it, I just want an explanation. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between [[Sparta]]ns and [[Sparta|Spartans]] is that the latter uses more characters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't answer my question, but OK. -99.255.188.158 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rv of "vandalism" at user talk page

Hi: Here you revert an edit by IP 92.0.235.202 and call it vandalism. The original title for the section, however, was indeed just dots. It was then renamed by the editor of the talk page. I was just wondering whether the editor, even though it is his user talk page, can actually change the heading (I know he can delete everything)? Best, --HJensen, talk 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation's been started on a Mediation Cabal case where you have been listed. I'd appreciate it if you and the parties involved show up and we can solve this issue. Concrete 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

oh

looks like someone reposted what you just removed about the year 2023

Fixed again, I think. Thanks, although I wish you would have added a signature stamp. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Spritos

User:Spritos is claiming, with no evidence, that Irish terrorists in fact did not Omagh, that there was a conspiracy, and that the article should be named to The 'Alleged' Omagh bombing or something like that. She is using the "I'm just asking questions" defense with no arguement.

Admittedly, my response have been unhelpful to the situation. To that, I was wrong. But I believe that this user should be blocked for being a conspiracy theorist using Wikipedia as a forum. It's exasperating. The Squicks (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to enter the Troubles issues. I'm sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug War Article

Hi Arthur,

I am the user who added the arguments in favor of the War on Drugs. Politics aside, I followed the request to expand the article--which is heavily biased against the WOD--and think you might reconsider whether or not it is "original research" and whether or not that should disqualify it in this case. The claims I made typified arguments which are commonplace, abundant in newspapers and other media, and presented in a way which speaks in a general tone. I think the section as I wrote it could easily act as a template for further confirmation and citations. That might seem like putting the cart before the horse, but I'd encourage you to leave the section and allow other users to improve on its reliability rather than assume it is uncredible and discount it outright.12.40.50.1 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

nb: the IP address is from a commonly used computer in a technology store; the rash of previous vandalism on the IP was not mine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see that, and I appreciate the effort. However, because the WoD involves real people persecuting other real people (with credible arguments on both sides as to which are the persecutors and which the persecutees), we must be very careful not to ascribe motives without sources. Perhaps you could work out the details on a subpage (I can set it up for you, as IPs cannot create pages) before adding it to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Red matter

Red matter (Star Trek) has been nominated for deletion. You can follow and contribute to the discussion at:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red matter (Star Trek).--Loodog (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Taxation

I am attempting to accurately describe the anarchist anti-state position on taxes, but all I am getting from Arthur Rubin is vague defensiveness, plainly motivated by his insecurity and fear, summed up in his repeated use of the self-serving term "nonsense."

Here are two things that you think are "nonsense":

1. I first said that calling the government's courts a "justice system" rests on the assumption that the authority of said courts is legitimate. In response, you said that "there is no implication that the "justice system" is just." Did you read that before typing it? Was it some kind of attempt at sarcasm or a joke? Clearly, identifying the government's court system a "justice system" is a way of claiming that these courts dispense justice, that its conclusions and dictates are just. "Just" and "justice" are two forms of usage of the same word, after all. Your response is therefore clearly inappropriate, and borders on vandalism.

2. When you changed the label for the government's tax-enforcement mechanism, you resorted to the term "legal system," which at least is more neutral and accurate than "justice system." However, when I tried to specify that the "legal system" that enforces government's taxation happens to be the GOVERNMENT'S very own "legal system," you say (again): "nonsense. A private tax can be enforced by a private legal system." This assertion misses the point entirely. We are not talking about "private taxes," whatever they are supposed to be. The article on Taxation begins with the assertion that taxes are forcible payments collected by a state. The section I am trying to edit is a description of the "Views opposed to taxation." However, you seem determined to abuse your position as an administrator to prevent me from even describing the basis for the anti-tax/anti-state position.

I won't be bullied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.79.189 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you add nonsense to the article, you will be blocked. Not by me, (per WP:UNINVOLVED), but by someone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling the government's courts a "court system" is nonsense? In the context of a discussion about the legitimacy of enforcing taxation via the government's courts, stating that the term "court system" is a more neutral term than "justice system" is nonsense? Do you know what is nonsense? Claiming that "there is no implication that the "justice system" is just." You have contributed nonsense to this discussion. 76.111.201.212 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What are "private taxes," by the way? It sounds like nonsense. 76.111.201.212 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeowner association dues. They are collectable to some extent, without access to the government courts. Think of it as a private parcel tax.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeowner association dues are 100% voluntary, and therefore not a tax. Either (a) the pre-HOA landowner voluntarily and explicitly grants a property interest to the HOA, thereby vesting it with the right to demand payment of the dues (much in the same way one voluntarily promises to make payments to a car company, which then has the right to demand payment), or (b) a subsequent purchaser of that land knowingly buys the property after it is already subject to the obligation to pay HOA dues. No one has HOA dues imposed on him or his property against his will. HOA dues are therefore no more a form of tax than a car payment is. The fact that you do not understand this simple concept is disturbing, considering your penchant for wildly reverting other people's perfectly legitimate and informative edits. Your aggressive ignorance is making Wikipedia dumber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.201.212 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. HOA dues are just as voluntary as property taxes. The rates are set by the same mechanism, also; a vote of the governing board, subject to approval by a majority vote of the association. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep using that word ... Here's the way it really works. Governmental taxing entities assert the power (i.e., the right, the authority) to collect property taxes without regard to whether the landowner consents or gives that entity the power to levy taxes. He may oppose the imposition of taxes altogether, but the taxing entity asserts that it has the authority nonetheless. Now, contrast that situation with an HOA -- an HOA cannot collect a single penny in dues unless the owner of each square inch of land in that HOA first GIVES the HOA the power to collect them.

The HOA's right to receive dues is a type of property interest, which means that before the HOA has any right whatsoever to be paid, each and every landowner must sign a stack of papers transferring that property interest to the HOA. The powers given to the HOA must be spelled out explicitly. It must be in writing, or it is unenforceable. Also, whenever the land in an HOA is sold, each and every subsequent buyer of those parcels of land buys his parcel with full knowledge that it is subject to the HOA's rights. The buyer cannot buy 100% ownership of the land (called "fee simple"). He can only buy the property rights that are left over in the hands of the seller, because a portion of the property rights no longer belong to him -- the HOA owns an interest in that land.

In other words, the powers of an HOA (including the right to be paid dues) are derived entirely from the actual consent of each and every individual that owns land subject to that HOA. Each owner's consent must be expressed in a formal, explicit and written grant of that power. Contrast that situation with governmental taxes, which are asserted even when the owner never consented and perhaps even actively objects. 76.111.201.212 (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with a political philosophy, it's abusive to use one's power as a Wikipedia admin to repeatedly delete people's attempts to provide a neutral, accurate description of that philosophy. And then threaten to ban anyone who crosses you. 12.192.79.189 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't taken any admin actions on that article, although most your (both IPs) comments are probably covered by the tax protester agreement. However, Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment seems relevant, so that tax protester arguments (and vocabulary) should probably be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You sent me a threatening message stating that undoing your attempts to erase my (valid, neutral) contributions would lead to my being banned.

2. I do not know what a "tax protester agreement" is. I assume you mean "tax protester argument", yes?

3. None of what you have said so far addresses the fact that my edits were obviously not attempts to make tax protester arguments, but merely to clearly, accurately and neutrally describe and summarize the 3 or 4 political philosophies cited in the section "Views opposed to taxation." (Anarchist, Anarcho-capitalist, Objectivist, etc.) The main problem with this section is that the style is just terrible, particularly very first sentence ("Because payment of tax is compulsory and enforced by the legal system, some political philosophies ..."). "Because" is not a particularly good word to express what is meant here. It's clumsy and awkward. What this tortured sentence is trying to say, although failing at it, is that these political philosophies maintain the position that taxation is theft on the grounds that payment is compulsory. That's what my most recent edits were trying to accomplish -- improved clarity. My edits did not constitute "tax protester rhetoric." It was an attempt to clearly describe the basis for the philosophical anti-tax position.

4. You have thus far failed to address my comments distinguishing HOA dues from taxes. You certainly don't have to agree with me on those points, but regardless of the extent to which you disagree with the arguments, it is perfectly valid, accurate and neutral for this section of this Wikipedia article to refer to the fact that a major tenet of anti-tax philosophies is voluntarism, and that they thus make a strong moral and legal distinction between voluntary and compulsory payments. 12.192.79.189 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I ws wrong, but on the other side.; HOAs form a quasi-government, with some direct enforcement powers against the properties under their jurisdiction. The homeowner doesn't have to agree to the covenants to be subject to them, and overdue dues can (at least at the association I live in) be collected by filing a lien against the property. Obviously, in order to collect on the lien, the HOA may have to go to the local government for assistance. Hence, HOA dues are not a "private" tax, just a tax. I suppose "protection money" paid to organised crime may be a private tax, except it's clearly not legitimate .... which, in the anarchist view, doesn't distinguish it from what is commonly called "tax", either.

I meant "tax protester agreement", which I pointed to later; Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment is an agreement that tax protester arguments are not to be included in "real" tax articles. Logically, that should extend to tax protester rhetoric, but it wasn't explicit.

I think most of your changes are not helpful; they "clarify" words which have no other plausible meaning. If you were writing legislation which actually passed, the courts would probably have to spend a lot of time deciding what your "clarification" actually meant.

For example, "justice system" is commonly used to mean "legal system", and, in fact, justice system redirects to legal systems of the world (possibly inappropriate, but it certainly indicates that there is no plausible meaning of "justice system" other than "legal system"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The types of powers exercised by HOAs is not the issue. The issue is the source of an HOA's powers, as compared to the (claimed) source of governmental powers. HOAs derive all of their powers from the direct, explicit, individualized grant of property rights from each and every affected landowner to the HOA. Therefore, you are incorrect when you say that "the homeowner doesn't have to agree to the covenants to be subject to them." Yes, they do. The homeowner agreed when he first granted powers and property interests to the HOA. Or, when someone buys property that is already under a pre-existing HOA, he buys it knowing full well that the property he is buying is less than 100%, unencumbered ownership. It's like buying property that is subject to a pre-existing easement -- the seller can't sell the land free of the easement, because he doesn't own the land free of the easement. Plus, if a government court enforces the right to be paid, it doesn't make the payment a tax. If you fail to pay your credit card bill, and the bank successfully sues you in a government court to be paid, that's not a tax, even though a government entity is ordering you to pay.

My changes were helpful, particularly since the existing text would be considered substandard material in a freshman composition class. Since you fail to cite examples, I have no way of knowing how to improve the clarity in a way that would meet with Your Highness's approval. Perhaps there is some kind of mediation service that could address the text in detail and help resolve this issue.

Regardless of the general usage of the term "justice system," I find it surprising that you would fail to appreciate the problem with the use of the term "justice system" to describe government courts in a section of text describing anarchist political philosophies. Clearly, the issues surrounding the legitimacy of taxation are rather closely related to the legitimacy of state authority generally, and thus the legitimacy of the state's courts in particular. 12.192.79.189 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the referenced "tax protester agreement," I noticed two things:

1. The purported "agreement" was made by and between people who all had the same anti-protester POV, so it's really more accurately described as a "declaration" or a "statement of Wikipedia admin policy" rather than an "agreement"; and

2. The issues discussed therein deal only with the narrow question of the legality of income taxation under U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution, whereas anarchist political philosophy is concerned with the legitimacy of government in general.

3. Several parties to this "agreement" (aka, declaration, statement of policy) expressed the same concern I have been discussing -- it is entirely in keeping with the NPOV principle to describe the oppositional viewpoints, and to summarize the rhetoric of parties to the argument. 12.192.79.189 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy

Just curious, you did not leave an edit summary. Is there some reason in particular that you reverted the Energy wiki article link off the Energy accounting article? That is the subject and is part of the subject. Could you explain your edit further on the talk page there, if you care to? Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Alex Jones Video Summaries

Summaries based on the videos should be verifiable since they are based on the videos which anyone who wants to see can see for free. As far as I know, all movie summary articles are written in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junsun (talk • contribs)

For controversial movies, we need a description from reliable sources, or a description clearly marked as a self-description. In this case, the movies make claims about living people, so we have to be quite clear that those claims are in the movie, and that the claims were intended to be in the movie, or we may defame Jones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin Fleischmann convenience link

I saw that you replaced the "unverified reprint" comment for the link, which, as you know, is fine with me. The link was taken out entirely by Verbal, first on the argument that we don't do disclaimers, then, when I took the disclaimer out (you were the only editor to suggest it, so there was still a consensus for the link without the disclaimer, and I accepted your version because that made complete consensus among those participating), Verbal removed it again with the old-hat copyright argument. Some arguments, factions, or editors die hard, apparently. Ah well, one issue at a time.

So I noticed your user page and then the article on you. Erdos 1 is about as impressive as I can imagine for one word, one number, and a mathematician. I would have been Caltech class of 65 had I not shifted my interests. Page House. My original interests (high school) were in nuclear physics, but I would have shifted my major to chemistry, probably biochemistry, had I continued. Probably sets me up to have some kind of entry qualifications for an elementary course in Cold fusion, where physics and chemistry collide, spectacularly. Nice to meet you. --Abd (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lane Splitting

Hi Arthur. Why did you revert that sentence from the Lane splitting article? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's unsourced (although true), misleading (as it applies to any criminal violation, not only lane splitting or even traffic violations), and .... I guess I don't have a third reason. Isn't that enough? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try something a little bit different that is sourced. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an editor's comments is not on game

This is a good point. However, you are free to ask me to move it, or to move it yourself. Deleting an editor's comments is not on game. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice also that you editing note has the word 'manged'. You were also free to clarify your remarks, which were profoundly off point, and undermining of good faith. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have moved it to a completely different section, but there was no way to determine which comment you intended to attach the comment. (IMHO, it didn't make any sense in that section, but, even if it were sensible, it would be pure speculation on my part as to where it belongs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank "You Scum" Hayes

"Cute, the guitar part is cute"

And true. It's as a common a running gag as the malady itself. See Frank's own bio from Duckon: “By 1983 or so, my ability to forget had reached legendary status,” Frank writes. “Some filkers claimed they got temporary amnesia just from sitting in the same room as me. On one amazing (but true) occasion, Heather Alexander borrowed a guitar, not knowing it was mine–and promptly forgot a song she had known for years.” -- http://www.filking.net/filkfaq/what-is-frank-hayes-disease/

"but the other edit, although actually used in filkdom, is not appropriate on Wikipedia"

So even tho that's his actual nickname, he has been been credited that way both on records and in song (Murray Porath's rebuttal to "Cheap lawyer"), the name is inappropriate? I find that curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbartilucci (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Murray's rebuttal to "Cheap lawyer". Still, even if an affectionate nickname, it touches on our WP:BLP, so requires a reliable source, such as actual credits on (printed) record/tape/album/whatever notes. The FAQ seems an adequate source for the association of the "disease" with the guitar, though, especially if phrased correctly, and attributing a corrected version of that comment ("further research", indeed) to the FAQ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

productivity

I notice some of your hard work on WP. It would be good if all CD editors could work on civility, explanation, and less frequently stamping out one line judgments, 'parental' directives, and subject changes. Its a problem not just at CD. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. 911 and other contraversial topics seem to bring out the worst in editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Generation Jones. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jumping to act

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_out_of_process_category_renames. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Merge_templates. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On a personal note. Thumbs up for undoing your edits. That is a hard thing for an editor to do, and I admire you for it. I hope we'll meet again in the near future, since I feel sure the discussion will continue. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates

How does it break grammar?

Without wishing to WP:OWN, I pretty much created, and pretty much maintain, these category structures, and the reason I used "since" instead of "from" for some of them is that I was expecting someone to jump down my throat if I used "from" and the first category in the series contained earlier items. This was a bad reason and I am grateful to Debresser for starting the work to bring them back into line, minor though it may seem. These are ephemeral housekeeping categories, we could have made a far more complex transition leaving the May 2009 and earlier categories as they are and making future ones "from" but this would have been a Bad Idea - for obvious reasons. Also note that William doesn't really care about this he just wants my name on ANI. It is his way of conducting himself on WP. Rich Farmbrough, 13:47 25 May 2009 (UTC).

We now have a lot of articles showing up with red-linked categories. Please restore the templates. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Your "minor housekeeping" edits is what created the 2 zillion redlinks. Please restore the system the way it was before you changed the structure. I'll comment at ANI when it finishes loading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Gen Jones

You made this comment: "I think I'm too involved" on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baby_Boom_Generation

My personal experience is that the GenJones discussion is highly personalized, in this case because (personal belief) it's one highly motivated individual on the other side. It seems to me that getting people to bow out of the discussion because their personal integrity is too high (or tolerance for pain is too low) is his basic method for operation.

The phenomenon of a highly motivated, single content poster for GenJones is not limited to Wikipedia. Here's some links from users on Huffington Post who seem only to post comments involving GenJones:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/JamesRandolph?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/ElectionFanatic?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/WatchingTheParade?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/wenton?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/whyzer?action=comments

And here's an interesting classic from TheSavvyBoomer: http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/the_savvy_boomer/2007/09/sarah-g-and-gen.html

DailyKos gets them too: http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=sertam&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=50&wayback=525600&wayfront=0 http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=50&string=HowAboutThat&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=50&wayback=525600&wayfront=0 http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=Y55Y&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=30&wayback=1576800&wayfront=0

RollandWaters (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but this has to do with our definition of "involved admin"; I'm not allowed to take admin actions related to an article if I'm "involved" as a content editor. See Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse of administrative tools. As repairing a cut/paste move requires using the delete button, it's an administrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur, for the clarification. Is there a way to pass the issue on to a "non-involved" admin? At this point, I'm reluctant to continue the discussion with the pro-Jones contingent (if it is even a contingent.) A quick look at the GJ discussions page will document my previous attempts at "discussion" with them / him. RollandWaters (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done, the next logical step is a subject RfC, to determine consensus about what should be in the generation articles. A user RfC about the offending user is a possibility, but there appears to be more than one editor name reinserting GJ stuff. Whether there is more than one editor is an open question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Arthur. A quick search did not reveal an topic on the open subject RfC page with any of the following keywords: "Boomer" "Jones" "Generation" "Baby" "Boom". If I get some time I will add a subject RfC, but will need to do the basic background research before-hand . I don't see a user RfC as being helpful as I personally have already dealt with a small handful of user names.RollandWaters (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's an increasingly vigorous debate on the delete page for Generation Jones. RollandWaters (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dylan Avery

Hi Arthur — Given that the whole list of people is probably already a bit too long, I agree with you not to list redirects in {{911ct}}.

I'll set up a subcategory "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories". We should link to this subcategory in {{911ct}}, and then significantly reduce the list of notable proponents in the template. I'd be glad to discuss with you who would be the (maybe 15 to 20) most notable proponents.  Cs32en  01:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of something I didn't do

I am not engaged in an "edit war" on the 2009 article, if you think I was doing it, you're probably mistaking me for someone else. I didn't revert 3, 4, or more edits on the 2009 article (in fact, I did't revert any changes that weren't vandalism), and I DON'T like people accusing me of things I didn't do (who does???). I also don't vandalize articles, I'm not that kind of person. And, if you have proof, show me. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My notes indicated that you added the same entry three times. It seems that that isn't correct. If it had been correct, at least the latter two would have been "reversions" for the purpose of the 3RR rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A little something I put together

User:NRen2k5/UBX/911_Truth

I thought you might like it. ;) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

date delinking abstain

Hi Arthur,

While writing a reply to yet another recusal demand, it struck me that I have voted on aspects of the case that relate to you in spite of the fact that we had an unpleasant interaction a long time ago.[17]

I've reviewed the incident ^{1 2}, and I no longer feel comfortable voting on aspects of the case that relate to you, so I have moved to abstain.[18]

My apologies for this; I will alert the other arbitrators so that they more carefully review this part of the proposed case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2010 article

You have threatened to block me for reversion in an edit war which I didn't start, and in which you yourself are a participant -- thus, in effect, using your supposedly independent official powers as a weapon to defend your own personal argument. This looks to me like a reportable offence. Expect to hear more. --PL (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I threated to report you for reversion in an edit war. It should be noted that the reporter's reversion actions are also noted in analyzing such reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Number edits

its ok, i may have been too hasty in assuming what is standard procedure. all i want to know is this: how do i sign up to be on the number project? is it just adding my name to the list on that page? ill read the link you provided. oh, and i also want to know if there is consensus about where to list nonmathematical uses of numbers (like levis 501, etc). do we put them on a disambig page, do we put them in the number article in "other uses", do we always put a DABlink on the year for the number page, any major uses (like 501's or 86'd), and all other uses, ie xxx (disambiguation)? i want to fix the articles, and personally i hate having all those cultural references on a page devoted to mathematics. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You sign up just by entering your name in the list. Announcing it on the WikiProject talk page is also a good idea.
2. For nonmathematical uses, any of the options seems acceptable, and DABlinks seem common in year articles. Usually stray uses of the number go in the number article or section, with disambig pages only being used if the number article would not otherwise exist or be a subarticle, such as 888 (disambiguation).
3. As for moving cultural references to other articles, it should be discussed on WikiProject Numbers. If you ask on the talk page, perhaps one of the older (I mean, more established) Wikipedians can point to where consensus was established. I clean out the stray jersey numbers from #Sports sections every once in a while; although we don't have consensus to remove all of them, the general rule is that only retired numbers are to be listed, and that usually in a professional league or the highest level of amature (sp? - I don't have a spell check in this browser) sports in the country. Unfortunately, NASCAR team numbers seem to be included, as are departments of France. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your forgot your smiley

I didn't get the joke in your post at WT:ACN: [19]. Could you clarify? I've certainly never used an alternate account abusively, and to the best of my recollection I've never even edited with an alternate account. (It's possible that I might at one point have created a temporary account to test admin tools and such, but I don't recall ever having done that.)

There have been occasional vandals who have used variants of my name (usually after I've blocked them, often for sockpuppetry...). Perhaps that's what you were thinking of...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Perhaps I was thinking of one of your "admirers". Do you want me to withdraw the statement? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could. It really doesn't strike me as helpful for other admins to be lobbing accusations of abusive sockpuppetry at me in front of the ArbCom. To be honest, I'm kind of put out that you didn't do any fact-checking before making such a statement. I mean, it's fine if you disagree with the comments I made at ACN, but it's not classy to casually attack my reputation. How would you feel if I dismissed any of your remarks with a "well, wasn't Arthur Rubin found to be an abusive sockpuppet at one time?" (Disclaimer: I haven't checked your record; I just assume that you never sockpuppeted abusively.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of sockpuppeting abuseively, but the the alleged sockpuppet was another independent established account. The checkuser request came back "are you kidding?" — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

competitive intelligence

I see that you've decided my little contribution to this article was "unhelpful." I am puzzled by this. Having working in the business intelligence field for almost 15 yrs., I see a very distinct difference between it and "competitive intelligence." I was tempted to re-write the piece to say that competitive intelligence is quite different from business intelligence, but tried simply to show how the two can be differently focused. The former is of course about someone's competitors, and may not have any information about your enterprise at all. It may for instance reveal their plans for a new product. The latter may have everything to do with your own operation, e.g. the number of hires made, customer complaints, sales made by type of article and store, etc. etc.,...and nothing at all to do with the competition. Just wondering how you arrived at your conclusion. As brief as the current entry is, it really doesn't provide much information about its subject, and shedding a bit more light on it seems "helpful." 206.112.75.239 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)dziskie

support about peer review

On wikipedia I sometimes see claims so concise they seem less informative. Could one delineate ground for the view that these two journals are not peer reviewed?

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

The journals themselves might state they involve peer review. CS appears to have some information. More importantly, the sentence in the article is characterizing what Jones has published, not characterizing the question of what peer reviewed articles have been published. There is no rule in WP that suggest articles should be vague (black or white) in describing what an author has published. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question was raised May 20. I'm still interested and question is still active and relevant. -- --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

sources for notability are other truther organizations?

I would have assumed that CS's sources were from news outlets. Am I mistaken? We have your AE911 note:

Almost all of your sources for notability are other truther organizations, even those who think this one is totally wrong.

I see that CS stated he was confused by your note. I don't see your reply to defend your characterization of his sources. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One would have assumed CS's sources were from news outlets, if one didn't check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts are an insult to you?

Here are the facts of this silly matter:

1. I changed the Inflation article to read that inflation IS and not only CAN BE bad for the economy. Arthur Rubin reverted that and stated it is NONSENSE.

2. I left this message on his talk page: Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as not to use insulting language like nonsense as you recently did on the Inflation article.

3. He responded that the truth is sometimes insulting.

4. I deleted my first comment on his talk page and left a second that I will call him Mr Nonsense from now on.

I was being polite to Arthur Rubin. He carried on insulting me. I do not see you reprimanding him. Then I tried to put an end to the event with a joke. You do not accept that. Now show us that you are fair: Go and threaten Arthur Rubin with a banning order for stating that my contribution is NONSENSE. Or is fairness not a Wikipedia value. Or can I now freely tell contributors here on Wikipedia their contributions are NONSENSE when I do not agree with them?

You are right in your defense of Arthur Rubin: It is better for me to be insulted here on Wikipedia than to try and stop the effects of an insult by means of a joke. You are 100% right: I should just have taken the insult quietly.

I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy NONSENSE.PennySeven (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you must know, you may have intended to do point 4, but you left additional comments attached to another section. If you had just done point 4, I would have further ignored your clearly intended insult, and let it archive normally. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What's more, I explained WHY it was nonsense in the rest of the comment. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I and the Deutsche Bundesbank disagree with your reasoning, but, I clearly, for obvious reasons, do not feel in the least inclined to discuss it with you as I do not want to receive another comment from you stating that my contribution is "nonsense." PennySeven (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 [20] in the article contradicts your statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

200 greenwich street

i do nto undertstand why you are unediting my descriptions about future world trade center buildings they are a big thing happening in the states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westmc9th (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Conjectured completion dates for the Freedom Tower are not listed in future year articles, because they are conjectured, not even planned. I don't see evidence that your dates are in any better shape, and there is no rational way that 2014 or 2036 could be relevant dates and not any date in between. (It's possible that the sources you are quoting aren't rational, but, that would require discussion before inclusion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"... incorrect changes... ".

Merry Meet and Shalom Aleichem!! My Dear Arthur, Far beit for me to post anything incorrect. For I am considered a perfectionist and a "nit-picker". As for what was "incorrect" in my posts you did not say. Am I to understand that you believe that the years A.D 1 to A.D. 524 (754 A.U.C. to 1277 A.U.C.) actually existed?? And how, pray tell, did they exist?? Were they in use?? Did somebody say, "Meet you again in A.D. 262."?? I would think not. And how about that "century" thing?? You believe that "the 1st century" actually ran from A.D. 1 to A.D. 100. You do realise that with the advent of the Arabic numbers and specifically the number zero ("0") that the calendar system would automatically recalibrate to include A.D. 0 and 0 B.C. . As a result the rest of the world have been celebrating the advent of a new century in the years A.D. 900, A.D. 1000, A.D. 1100, A.D. 1200, A.D. 1300, A.D. 1400, A.D. 1500, A.D. 1600, A.D. 1700, A.D. 1800, A.D. 1900, & A.D. 2000. I am sorry but this is the truth. Alas, this means that I can not contribute at this time. Everything from me would be considered... "incorrect". I will have to study this for awhile. I will need my own space to express myself in. Thank you, Aleichem Shalom, and Blessed Be Y'All!! Tuesday, 9th of June, 2009 CE Tuesday, 20th of June, 6025 XIII @ 12:04 UTC . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinfield (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

0. As can be seen, Wikipedia, at least, doesn't start lists with "0".

1. The "invention" of the 0 in Western Europe has no effect on year numbering as defined in Western Europe. That it did is a myth, mentioned in the [[Year zero[[ article.
2. Perhaps years before 525 should be noted as being retroactively numbered (not quite proleptic (sp?), in that the years and days of the year were set by Julius Caeser), in the sense that astromomers use a variation of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Even so, years before the Julian calendar was created would be proleptic. Still, the time interval now denoted 200 BC undoubtably existed, whatever the natives called it, and we can discuss what happened then.
3. I shouldn't have called your edits "vandalism"; there is a recurrent banned editor whose similar edits are clearly vandalism, but yours may be a good faith misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion that from your previous comments I think you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

please list the peacock terms so they can be addressed

please list the peacock terms so they can be addressed in the article's talk so they can be addressed. ThanksJ. D. Redding 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

remove some invention book tags?

I was going to remove peacock=y|refimprove=y from the top. Please respond shortly if you have concerns still. J. D. Redding 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1994 band

Regarding your reversion of my entry about the Karen Lawrence band 1994 that I put under the 1000 (number) article: There is some discussion on the band on her article, so that is why I put in the reference to her. (It is mistakenly called "1994:", I guess because there was a colon on one of the album covers by the band but not the other one). It is a real band that released two albums on a major record label (I have a copy of one of them), so I don't understand why you would delete the reference entirely even if the Karen Lawrence reference is unsourced. Shocking Blue (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct Selling/ACN

Jut an FYI, contrary to your comment there is quite a large article on ACN and it is listed in the disambiguation page, so you must have missed it. Whether it's one of the largest direct selling companies is another point though. I've found and added revenues and it would appear not.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Hey Arthur Rubin/Archive 2009, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:

• Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#.22Violent.22_direct_action.3F

And spilled over here:

1. Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.22violent_direct_action.22_is_misleading
2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Fhue_and_User:NRen2k5
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fhue

— NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Articles to be split

I do not understand your comments of 20:33, 17 June 2009. The 2008 discussion was not speedy (it was 13 days, with few comments, and general agreement). Your suggestion seems a tautology. Clarify? -- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. However, it probably would have qualified as a C1 delete, as it was filled by a template error, and then created. It almost certainly had been empty since the nomination. However, 2 comments does not a "discussion" make. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Still doesn't explain tautology.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

so why not discuss questionable material?

[21]

and why introduce words which are NOT in sources? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It smells like a BLP violation, although I could be wrong. If the Chomsky reference is accurate, and he is consider reliable per se, it might be worthy of note — but probably not. As for the addition of tags words not in the source, if you correct that separately, I probably won't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

please participate on the article talk page discussion, and don't just put brief edit summaries. for example, explain there why provided sources are fringe, especially in relation to other provided sources in the lead. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Income tax in the U.S.

Arthur, I wanted to say that I agree with the removal of the fairtax.org content for weight on that area and accuracy reasons, but I believe you are wrong on the point that it is an unreliable source. It is a reliable primary or tertiary source. If given proper attribution for the opinion, content from that site could be included. It's not a preferred secondary source and that viewpoint might not deserve weight (although it is the most sponsored tax reform plan in Congress), but it is a reliable primary source for that plan and their viewpoint on tax reform. Morphh ^(talk) 0:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor socking

Note this comment - any accounts you noticed by RE in the past couple days, could you plunk down somewhere and let me know? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Astrophysics

Sorry, Arthur Rubin. I got a smidgen carried away, there, about the category template, at Physics of the Impossible. Ti-30X (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Preventing school violence

Please don't transfer the preventing school violence entry to the school violence entry. The quality of the preventing school violence entry, as it stands right now, is too weak. Perhaps it will improve at some future date. Currently, it is not properly sourced. Mostly secondary sources and anecdotes. The difference in quality is too great. The school violence entry already has properly sourced citations. Mainly primary sources from refereed journals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 03:54, June 26, 2009

I'm willing to let the article continue to develop, but only those parts which do not relate to general school violence or general vilence prevention should remain. I really don't know if that would leave anything, even if the sourcing were properly done. I'm not willing to have SeeAlso's from loosly related article, however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You might have explained your objections. I have rarely ever seen objections about related articles being put in the see also section, it isn't like Im forcing any one to read it. So far no one has provided much of an explanation as to what is wrong with this article. Mostly people have deleted links claiming it is original work without commenting on the sources who all agree on the basics. I find it somewhat ironic that someone who claims to be opposed to censorship is deleting links without explanation especially since I find it hard to see what is so bad about opposing child abuse and other causes of violence. Part of the problem is that the traditional media reports on it like entertainment and often glorifies it. I haven't mentioned that in the article since I haven't sourced it but it is reflected in the attitudes of many people who get there information from the media. I have tried to cite sources that rely on more research and the only person who ackowledges reading some of my sources seems to be the only one who agrees. This isn't farfetched material I'm putting in. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the articles you linked to Preventing School Violence should have been linked to school violence, if linked to a related article in that family at all. Although I have doubts that a reasonable article could be produced at preventing school violence (which probably should be school violence prevention), I'm willing to let it develop, but not with inappropriate links to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inflammatory language of Alex Jones (radio host)

Regardless of your, or my personal view of this man, "conspiracy theorist" is POV. If predicting 9/11 three or so months before hand makes him a "conspiracy theorist", and I, or anyone else for that matter, has no hope of changing it because Arthur Rubin says no, then I fear that Wikipedia is no longer a neutral or verifiable source for controversial material. If it's nothing more than a "cabal" that I am against, and I simply need to "get with the program", then accept my formal apology for trying to make Wikipedia sound as fair as possible for everyone. JeremiahSamuels (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you want to replace the description to "considered to be a conspiracy theorist by all marginally credible sources", I could go with that, but "conspiracy theorist" seems a reasonable shorthand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, my original premise still stands. It's only unfortunate that I'm new here and don't know how to effect any real difference without running into a Sysop with more Wikipedia Magic, and clearly a more important opinion, bias and all.

By the way, I know that you have run into this exact issue before. It was amusing, yet saddening, to see one of your cabal friends isolating "troglyodyte" in his appeal to give him a last-straw warning against blockage. You merely ridiculed his premise. JeremiahSamuels (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question

A preliminary answer was entered in Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 27. Also, please take no offense in the blanking of my Talk page. Cheers, Henry Delforn (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 25#Template:Catdesc

"I fell for it once before"

To what/when/where are you referring?
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When I reverted the previous out-of-process template change that you alerted us to. No offense, but the changes were so interlaced that I couldn't figure out how to back them out. No offense intended. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In that matter, I hadn't told you that I'd prepared them for deletion/restoration in any way. It didn't help that Farmbrough was actively modifying templates at the same time as you were reverting, and his bot refused to stop, even though his previous deletions had been reverted and cleaned up after the previous discussion. In any case, as no offense was intended, your comment yesterday was awkwardly phrased, and I'd appreciate a re-phrasing.
-- a mere <= 4 --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:2012

Sorry, did not realize I was vandalizing. I searched Titanic in the article's talk page, and as I found nothing I included the anniversary on the article. Also, I don't believe I've been doing any "disruptive edits". Just trying to help. -- Rick Cooper ^{(Talk page)} 14:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

boomerang and boomerang generation

Hi! I notice you re-removed the link to boomerang and said "boomerang doesn't have a reference to the term or to this article". Why does that suggest there shouldn't be a link?

I noticed a parallel in Wikipedia's articles on crocodile and crocodile tears: the latter links to the former, but not vice versa. Same with Jesus and Jesus freak. (Sorry for the pejorative example - I was trying to think of compounds.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to wikt:boomerang; it seems that none of our articles on topics related to the word "boomerang" mention the secondary definition of "returning"; if you can find one which should, and add it, then the link (directly to that article and section, not to the disambiguation page) would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A link to wikt:boomerang would accomplish what I wanted (a visual confirmation of the metaphor), so thank you for that suggestion! But I'd still like to ask you about this, to understand Wikipedia's policy on links. (I've wondered about this. It seems that people link willi-nilli to anything Wikipedia has an article on, but you clearly have a more deliberate rationale in-mind.)

Why would I link to one of the "articles on topics related to the word 'boomerang'" and not to boomerang itself?

Also, why would a link to wikt:boomerang be appropriate but not to boomerang?

Thanks! UserAccount001 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You should link to a specific article, either on Wikipedia or on WIktionary, which mentions use of the word "boomerang" as meaning that which "returns". (By the way, in Failure to Launch, he never left home. Not quite the same....). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is in the intro to boomerang: "The most recognizable type is the returning boomerang, which is a throwing stick that travels in a elliptical path and returns to its point of origin." Doesn't that establish that returning is a central characteristic of (the most recognizable type of) boomerangs? UserAccount001 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that clear. But, even so, for it to be relevant, the article need mention a general returning property. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell me if this is correct (hypothetically - I don't think this is warranted): Say I were to add a section to boomerang called "Boomeranging as a generalized type of motion" and the section read "The unusual characteristic of returning to the point of origin has made the boomerang a common metaphor for objects - and even abstract states - that proceed in a there-and-back fashion. Cf. wikt:boomerang and boomerang generation." (The Wiktionary entry does reference this and identifies a verb "to boomerang" and a noun "boomeranger" meaning one who returns home after college.) Then it would be kosher to link boomerang generation to that section of boomerang, right?

But I'd like to ask a follow-up question: why is such a rigid referential link necessary? When I'm reading an article that casually mentions Brazil (without Brazil being crucial to the topic), I like the convenience of being able to click to Brazil. Does Wikipedia officially deprecate that kind of link? What might help me get my mind around this is: can you direct me to a Wikipedia policy on linking? That way I can do my homework and come to you (if necessary) with better-informed questions. Thanks again for your time. UserAccount001 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of a comparison apropos of Brazil! brazil nut contains the text "The Brazil nut tree is ... native to the Guianas, Venezuela, Brazil, eastern Colombia, eastern Peru and eastern Bolivia." Each of those place-names is linked to the article, but not to a special section of the article on Brazil nuts or even on domestic products / agriculture / ecology; just the main article. None of the articles (I checked) contains an embedded reference to Brazil nuts. So this seems to violate what you're saying, as do the examples I used before - crocodile, Jesus.

That doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think it means you need a powerful rationale for going against what I would argue is a nearly ubiquitous practice of linking without strong justification - for going against that and reversing an edit I made in that tradition. I hope it's OK to challenge you on that. I find the process of composing and editing in Wikipedia to be fascinating and worth understanding well. I'm asking all this so I can be a better contributor in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserAccount001 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Refute reverted edits

Hello Dr. Rubin,

First I would like to thank you for your work that you do with Wikipedia. It is a great service. Second, I would like to know what is the process to respond to the changes you made to my edits (actually my edits were completely reverted). I can provide formal arguments and cite published journals showing that my edits should stand. I apologize in advance if the reverted edits were caused by my failure to follow proper procedure.

Sincerely,

Christopher Henry, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Candidate Computational Intelligence Laboratory Elect. & Comp. Engineering, University of Manitoba, (AKA NearSetAccount)

Whatever a near set is, it's not a concept in set theory, and WP:MOS includes the fact that there should rarely be piped links in the #See Also section, and then it should only in the form [[Article name#Section name|Section name]], or some similar name indication. Perhaps you could comment at WT:MATH (the WikiProject Mathematics talk page), and request advice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, your comment should read "it’s not a concept in traditional set theory." Near set theory is applied set theory and is built on the fundamentals of traditional set theory, as well as, Rough set theory. It is an accepted research area and is well published.

To borrow from the Wikipedia set page:

By a "set" we mean any collection M into a whole of definite, distinct objects m (which are called the "elements" of M) of our perception [Anschauung] or of our thought.

In near set theory, the elements of a near set are distinct objects that are elements of our perception. A set $X$ is considered a near set relative to a set $Y$ in the case where the feature values of one or more of the objects in the set $X$ are almost the same (within some epsilon) as the feature values of one or more of objects in a set $Y$. In effect, any traditional Cantor set $X$ is called a near set whenever the nearness requirement is satisfied. I would be more than happy to send you a copy of an article giving the underlying theory on near sets.

So, what is the proper procedure for us to more forward? I would like near sets added to the see also section of the page on Set Theory.

Lastly, I would also like to add that you rejected some of my other edits that had little or nothing to do with traditional set theory. Was this just a matter of improper formatting of the links, i.e., because they were “piped links?” Christopher Henry 2:22, 02 July 2009 (UTC)

I have opened an SPI about the Generation Jones fiasco

The investigation can be found here. I also thought you might want to take a look at an the evidence page I created before actually filing the report. Unitanode 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is awesome! I can't believe the editing process gets this involved! I think it's great that there's a process in-place to deal with that kind of "chicanery" (good word). Good luck getting to the bottom of it! UserAccount001 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some detail as to a potential 3RR violation, and tagged the checkuser request. Perhaps that will help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose of Full-date unlinking bot

Greetings. I'm an active member of the Bot Approvals Group, and I have a distinct interest in making sure that bots will operate only according to consensus with community support. In the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot, I saw your !vote that said "The proposer's lack of understanding of the end cases suggests this bot may damage articles, even in cases where the unlinking is clearly (and can be seen to be clearly by the bot) a good idea. I may change my !vote when the code is published, but there seems to be a likelyhood of significant damage caused by the bot." I would like to know more about this. If the proposer does not understand how the bot may change articles, or will damage articles in unrelated ways, he would not be approved to run it. In fact, there is a significant possibility that Apoc2400 would not be the person chosen to operate such a bot. In is extremely important to us at BAG that this task be run by someone who has the trust of the community. That's why I'm interested in your insights about this bot idea in general, and about Apoc2400 in specific. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, my concern is that the proposed scope of the bot may not properly deal with edge-cases, since Apoc2400, as well as the date delinkers named in the date delinking RfAr, seem to be unable to understand that only autoformatting is deprecated, not date links per se. I would consider the bot in keeping with community consensus if it were written to only handle correctly autoformatting cases, and to handle them by mapping them to a valid date format. Lightbot, for example, damaged a number of "dates" of the form [[June 2]], [[1993 in film|1993]] by changing it to [[June 2]], 1993, rather than to the more plausible June 2, [[1993 in film|1993]]. If the bot changes only autoformatted dates, and changes them to a valid date format in keeping with the majority of dates in in the article, I would still rather it not be done, but agree that it meets an apparent consensus. There seems to be disagreement about that in Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot, as well, but I think there is a clear consensus against the current method of autoformatting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As I read the proposal, it would only handle autoformatting cases such as [[June 2]], [[1993]]. It will not alter [[June 2]], [[1993 in film|1993]] at all. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He DOES have gall

Check this out.

He's technically right as to Generation Y. I commented in the report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? If I'm blocked for this, I'm done. Unitanode 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I commented there. Unitanode 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism

Hi. This was not vandalism. It was unsourced and weakly worded, undoing it as such was ok, but it was a good faith edit, not WP:Vandalism. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. There is a lot of inappropriate additions and deletions (conspiracy theorist?) to that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby Boom Generation

Hi there. I reverted what looked to me like a deletion of well-sourced material. I saw you reverted it, and looking further back, I can see that there appears to be an edit war going on over it. I usually like to stay out of such affairs, so if you could let me know what the objection is to that material, I can step aside and let the rest of you work it out. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly about Generation Jones; a now-blocked editor and a number of WP:SOCKS have been adding material about it to many articles, some where it is tangential, and all with undue emphasis (yes, even in Generation Jones, itself). Some of the material is sourced, although most seem to be quasi-press-releases and articles by and about Pontell, rather than neutral articles about Generation Jones and the Baby Boom Generation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a non-sock, I think the information that you reverted is directly relevant, in addition to being well-sourced. Having had some limited experience with the Generation Jones business, I can appreciate your frustration, though. Would you mind self-reverting that change? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion relevant to this at the talkpage. Unitanode 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.

Thankyou. Exxolon (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal Apologies

I am truly sorry for my display of inappropriate behavior on the List of Numbers. It was a high honor to be caught by you, good sir. Thank you for setting me back on the path of virtuousness and righteousness. Yours indefinitely, 69.141.149.78 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: "(revert good faith additions; even if the formulas are correct d/dt is out-of-scope; Undid revision 300217381 by Stpasha)"

But i cannot agree with you sir. I copied them from a book where they are listed under the heading "rules for matrix differentiation". They cannot be readily derived from either of the formulas listed on matrix differentiation, nor on Table of derivatives. And they are also useful, as an example consider the problem of maximizing likelihood of a linear model where variance-covariance matrix Ω(θ) depends on parameter:

${\mathcal {L}}(\theta ,\beta )=(2\pi )^{-T/2}|\Omega (\theta )|^{-1/2}e^{-{\tfrac {1}{2}}(y-X\beta )'\Omega (\theta )^{-1}(y-X\beta )},$

a problem which arises for example in time-series models. Anyways, could you please either restore those formulas or find an appropriate page where they could be placed. // Stpasha (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Whiplashes and Open Directory Project

FYI: User_talk:Whiplashes#Welcome.21 —Finell (Talk) 11:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He's revert warring. Also, while User:Whiplashes is a brand new account, the user seems to know more about Wikipedia practices than a brand newbie. You might want to have checkuser run to see if this is a sockpuppet. Finell (Talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

fake external links?

I that is better to use external links when using wikipedia as "references". Apart from being cross namespace links, they should probably point to the original page at en.wikipedia.org is the article was forked to soem other website, for example. Cheers, —Ruud 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, there's even a guideline for such cases. —Ruud 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In context, it should probably link to specific versions of Carl's lies statements. Perhaps a self-reference to the specific RfAr to support Carl being banned might also be appropriate, but that's a primary source. On the other hand, Carl is also a primary source, so....

But I can see your point, although I think it adds to the confusion Carl wishes to spread about Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shooting At Truth

I wish you would take a little more time for reflection before shooting from the hip at 911Truth. My suggestion that Jones was evidence based is entirely unworthy of your excited reply along those specific lines. At this link, you will see that every page of his paper refers to studies or data or evidence, including NIST, meaning evidence based.

This is relevant to Quest's claims about 911 researchers who question government claims. It is also relevant to the term 'conspiracy theoricist' for which there is no consensus due to its multiple meanings (see WP:words to avoid). This article, Jones below, is not concerned primarily with theories of conspiracies, but rather with evidence of events.

14 Points of Agreement http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. If that's the same letter I read before, it's not concerned with theories of conspiracies, but not really concerned with facts, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the second time you have been asked not to change the subject by shifting what someone else says. My sentence says, "evidence based" not facts. Furthermore, you are free to give a reason for your view, as I did in mine. This would stand in contrast to delivering your top down smear word, quote, "nonsense", as you say, without a trace of explanation. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to clarify. Perhaps you would not like to be on record denying that this paper refers to studies, data, evidence, including statements of NIST and FEMA, on virtually every page. I see over 25 citations on a pager of less than 8 pages in length. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It refers to studies, but quotes statements from NIST which clearly mean something completely different than what he says they mean. (He should get together with a banned editor specializing in ritual child abuse articles, but he's a little more subtle, in that he quotes the articles correctly, but ignores the definition section and commentary which causes it to mean something completely different.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of Jones's papers, although I'm not sure about that one, make statements which are mathematically wrong, often failing dimensional analysis. It could still be "evidence-based", but outright lying about what the evidence might mean. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jones' article still looks evidence based, since I just have your personal claim about that. The portion of your reply can take seriously is "he quotes the articles correctly, but ignores the definition section and commentary which causes it to mean something completely different." In rhetorical terms it still looks to me like vague smear attack language I remember against Paul Oneill, Richard Clark and Scott McLellan. If you have a clear analysis written up, showing specifically what you say, I am open to revising my view. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase someone with whom I disagree in general, but it seems to fit:

• In any other field, one tenth of the evidence would suffice. In this field, it seems 10 times will not suffice.

The analysis of Jones's self-published papers has been done many times, some in real peer-reviewed journals. He made a number of mistakes in the original "free-fall" calculations. The nanoparticle and pulverization calculations seem to be contradicted by the energy balance of the recent (3 years ago?) discovery of fullerenes in low-temperature combustion products. And the "tilt" and "falling within the footprint" comments seem to be incompatible with basic mechanical engineering. (I'm qualified to talk about basic mechanical engineering.)

I don't think there's been time for his apparently-not-self-published papers to be analyiszed in peer-reviewed journals with real review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't one of those peers an author of the paper?

At 9Truth you ask?

Wasn't one of those peers an author of the paper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Bentham_Open.E2.80.A6_again

Are you really asking, based on something? Or are you rhetorically insinuating it? Our discussion might benefit from something you have on that, if there is something credible on that. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, whoever listed the "peers" actually listed the authors, as someone commented later (but above my comment). I believe that was a mistake on the editor's part, whether or not it's you. I doubt that even outright frauds would list any of the authors of a paper as "peer reviewers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I initially mistook you to be saying something else (that an editor simultaneously had a peer role in some capacity), and now I got it - merely that someone mistook who was who. Thanks for the clarify. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

wonder the correctness about a equation in Derivative of linear functions in Matrix calculus

Hello,I'm Guohonghao,a Chinese student in BUAA.
In the Derivative of linear functions in Matrix calculus in wikipedia, it says

${\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}}}={\textbf {A}}^{T}$

I wonder whether it's corect. I think ${\textbf {x}}^{T}$ is a row vector,and ${\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}$ is also a row vector. So ${\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}}}$ should be a large row vector. And it will no be equal to ${\textbf {A}}^{T}$,which is a matrix.
I don't know where I go wrong.Please give me an advice.Thanks a lot.
--Guohonghao (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Guohonghao

Ouch, you're right.

${\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}}}={\textbf {A}}^{T}$

is correct, though, although confusing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After my calculation,I think it will be

${\frac {\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}{\textbf {A}}}{\partial \;{\textbf {x}}^{T}}}={\textbf {A}}$

Please check that again.--Guohonghao (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Guohonghao

Lets keep things clear (911T)

Nren made a certain statement about a certain article. Your reply is not about a certain article. I had to ask you previously to stay on topic. I hope you are not deliberately being disruptive. This is important because several editors do far too frequently seem to shoot before looking and aiming. I notice you give an answer, and then you are asking if (not saying that) we have references for that. Instead of asking, why not give the source that informed your view? For that reason, I wonder if you are perhaps just using the discussion page to play around, or to let your personal ideology dominate. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I know we had a reference for "reverse scientific method", but I don't know if it's currently in the article, and I'm not entirely sure it's one we can legitimately use. So it is a question. Still, you can't expect comments contrary to the (apparent (to me, anyway)) scientific and engineering consensus that conventional controlled demolition wasn't used, and exotic (semi[1]-)controlled demolition wouldn't be adequate[2], to go unchallenged.

1. It wasn't controlled demolition; 2 buildings other than the ones destroyed were seriously damaged.
2. Unless I or Jones lost a decimal point, the energy "required" for the pulverisation was in the range of megatons of TNT equivalent. It's hard to imagine exotic chemical explosives which would have that much energy unless embedded as a significant fraction of the building skeleton. This is OR on my part, but it seems sufficient to discredit the pulverisation energy estimates unless an explanation could be provided. Mini-nukes, anyone?

As for the "thermate residue" found, normally I would accept the opinion of a nano-composite expert. However, they also denied that fullerenes could be produced in an ordinary fire, and, once people knew how to look for them, they found them everywhere. For inclusion, I think we would need some non-911 scientist clearly stating that nanoparticles cannot form in low-temperature fires.

For what it's worth, I'm a global warming skeptic; the data up to 2001 clearly didn't support the conclusion, and now that the new data appears to support exactly the same conclusion for the estimated 2100 temperature, I want an explanation why the current method produces the same result as one that was clearly flawed. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable source that uses that argument, so it's not in the article. Yet. The nuclear winter people bother me as well, although, if accurate, that provides a solution of sorts for global warming....

I'm also not sure about HIV and AIDS; there are enough people with the symptoms, but do not test postive for HIV or HIV 2, that I consider the matter "not proven".

But I won't propose changing the articles unless I have reliable and/or scientific sources. Jones is a scientist, but so was Pauling, and his Vitamin C papers were drivel, even if they might have been correct in result. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Ok, I am relieved you say there should be an article. Was the article you have in mind merely really a blog or informal website, perhaps unsigned, perhaps one that seems highly politicized (spin)?

2) I want editors to challenge my view. What I don't favor is editors rejecting others' views with snappy empty opinions and slogans, ones without explanation or substance. By "explanation or substance" I don't mean politicizing words like "sigh", "that's ridiculous", "you must me joking".

Otherwise, WP discussions become just a circus-of-opinions or museum-of-random-opinions. Otherwise, without substance, editors appear to copying and mimicking rhetorical tactics used by former 'professional' spin operatives.

3) I can't begin to imagine how your referring to "2 other buildings ... were seriously damaged" is a realistic and relevant way to explain why controlled demolition did not happen. There is a logical step or piece I am missing.

4) About "energy required". Truthers state say they have witnesses, and I've been given some testimony, attesting that access was quite easily possible, and so placement of exotic materials was physically possible. Perhaps so.

5) I trust many scientists' articles are "drivel" as you rightly note. However, what I need is not just such a general statement of that being possible in this instance, which I already appreciate might be possible. It might possible, or more likely, for other sources.

6) About "fullerenes". You might be right about that, and I need more info. I am a researcher through and through. How can I come to see and understand this problem? How can I come to know, as you have, that the "such and such" is possible at low temperatures? I'm sure you have a reason to point out this problem, and if the article is wrong, I welcome the credible information. It doesn't have to be "perfect" information, but just reasonably credible. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Decade

I input an addition to "Decade" because one decade is commonly said to go from, for instance, 1950 to 1959, but more accurately, according to our Gregorian calendar, to go from 1951 to 1960. The first year was AD 1, not AD 0, so the first decade went from AD 1 to AD 10.

From Wikipedia "Gregorian calendar" it states, "For dates before the year 1, unlike the proleptic Gregorian calendar used in the international standard ISO 8601, the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar (like the Julian calendar) does not have a year 0 and instead uses the ordinal numbers 1, 2, … both for years AD and BC. Thus the traditional timeline is 2 BC, 1 BC, AD 1, and AD 2."

Yes, people commonly use the years from 1950 to 1959 as the decade of the fifties. But, according to science, isn't it really from 1951 to 1960. I was just pointing this out, and not "vandalizing" the article.

If I am wrong in these statements, please tell me.

William W. Atkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAAtkins (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia says, "This standards- or measurement-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." -- Which is just what I was trying to do. -- If you are the owner of this article, then you have the right to edit it. If you are the owner, you can, in my opinion, state your displeasure better than saying someone "vandalized' your Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAAtkins (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're wrong. A decade is any interval of 10 years, but there is no scientific definition of the "1950s". As I commented on your talk page, the 1950s are clearly 1950–1959, while the 196th decade of the common era may very well be 1951–1960, except that nobody uses that term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor sock

As an FYI, RE is back, he recreated the extreme abuse survey page and the ritual abuse-torture page. I've fixed those but there may be more. I'm surprised the EAS page wasn't salted, considering this was the [22] [23] third or fourth time this has happened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

About "-0"

Hi,

You reverted the article "-0" to the previous version. I wrote it, so I am curious to know why you did that? Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere that I am not aware of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.135.39 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In the areas where there were differences, the older version was more correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.135.39 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Date vandals

Lahs08 (talk · contribs) is making the same edits as the Homersimpsons, sock/puppetmaster perhaps? And shouldn't Lahs be blocked also for the same edits? Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Lahs08 seems now only to be changing "was" / "will be" to "is", and some additional (possibly accidental) errors. Unless you can supply a diff showing him saying 2005 is the current year, or vandalising talk page dates, I think he deserves one more final warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW

Those outline articles could be useful if reworked a bit. I think they need a more neutral and clear title like list of Kosovo subjects or such. They sure look like list articles. -- Banjeboi 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo, in particular, is difficult, because of the question of whether it's a country, and some of the redlinked outline articles presume it's a country. I still don't see it as useful, but only in the case of articles of disputed scope is the matter serious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

Hi Arthur and sorry for the disturbance. I have a problem in the past few days with an spa that insists on adding information on Goldman Sachs based on a youtube citation ([24],[25]]). I already left a few warnings on the user's talkpage. I thought of contacting you because I am familiar with your work on the Alex Jones article regarding similar issues. I will monitor the situation on the article and if it deteriorates I would appreciate your assistance because I would like to avoid edit-warring with the user. Please let me know if you want to get involved, if and when the need arises. Also bear in mind that aside from the problems with the citation, there are additional problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV with the proposed edit. Thank you very much. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 20:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Which of the conflicting goverment reports is the real one?

Sir Rubin. At CT, I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "mainstream" theory, as if you think the government reports give one theory. Which government theory refers to molten steel? Is it NIST or FEMA? Which government theory acknowledges free fall speeds? Is it US NIST or US FEMA? Which one has pancaking? Which one doesn't? Perhaps you would like to clarify which one of the conflicting agency reports is your official one. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no report, government or not, of "molten steel". There are credible reports of molten metal; although spectroscopic analysis probably would have identified whether it's primarily iron or primarily alumnimum, it apparently wasn't done, either by mainstream sources or by alternative researchers. (It could have been done by alternative researchers....) Careful analysis of videos of the molten metal could have estimated the temperature, but even that, apparently, wasn't done, either by mainstream or alternative researchers.

There are not credible reports of "free fall speeds"; analysis of videos of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 all show about half free fall speed.

Now, pancaking, appears in some mainstream analyses, but not in others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis

In case you are interested...

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

I noticed your userboxes and thought you might be interested. If not, no problem! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gravity Control Propulsion Research

I performed a review of the literature about this subject that had been published from 1954 through 1970. To my surprise, there were no retractions and no denials. I was "inspired" to conduct the search by another writer from that era who had made that observation. One of the technical magazines that had published an announcement went out of business shortly afterwords.Tcisco (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the entire section qualifies as original research by our standards, unless some reliable source (i.e., a publication with a reputation for accuracy (even if not for spelling)) includes it. It is interesting, but a tendancy toward publications going out of business after publication reports of successful antigravity tests is indicative of one of two things

1. A conspiracy (a rather incompetant one; a competent one would destroy the magazine before publication) to suppress the information, or
2. Selection of such information for publication is an indication the magazine was already failing.

I side with #2, but some theories consistant at low energy density with general relativity have gravitational currents at high energy density. The energy density required to get practical applications in most of those theories is much higher than is actually attainable, but there are always possibilities. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Item #1 is very speculative. Have you had any experience in classified operations? I was employed a few decades ago, with a security clearance, in a department for applied research and development. Some of the technologies I had tracked before that job had suddenly disappeared from the open publications. I discovered they were doing quite well after I received my security clearance and could access the base library. A couple of references I have cited in this article had missing library cards and no computer entries. I had located them by manually searching for them in various libraries. I will try to locate the reference that had commented on the absence of retractions. The aviation magazine that went out of business did not seem to be able to keep up with the competition. Competency wasn't the problem.Tcisco (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have worked on classified projects where there has been speculation in the unclassified literature, but we were directed not to search the unclassified literature, as that search might provide information which was inherently classified to the search engine, and possibly indirectly to users of the search engine. On an earlier classified project, we used Aviation Leak for data that could be used in unclassified simulations, but that project (or at least my view of it) never rose above Secret. So, I can neither confirm nor deny your speculation on my speculations. Still, regardless of accuracy, that paragraph is original research, unless a reliable source makes the specific comments.

The "escape" of the Scientific American article on RSA, and The Progressive article on nuclear bombs, suggests that the security managers couldn't hit the side of a barn, so that #1 seems quite plausible, at that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Aviation Leak and Space Mythology. I had not encountered that label. Several of my reliable references probably fall within that category.Tcisco (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why must you keep reverting me?

Take a look at the edit history for the article Neutronium. --116.14.72.74 (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the only one. However, my reason is that antihydrogen is only element "-1" if neutronium and antineutronium are conflated, and ⁴Nt is not an isotope, even if it it were quasi-stable (half life >10^-10 s). ²Nt probably shouldn't be there, either, but there seems a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What's your thinking here?

This is confusing to me. How could there possibly be a time when it's okay to state unequivocally "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian/gay/bi" when there's not enough support for a category? Categories are far less visible than article text, so I don't understand your reasoning here. Unitanode 21:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"X is a Jew^[1]" allows you to check reference 1 to see how reliable it may be, while categories do not have any such checks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My change to the policy doesn't affect "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian^[1]" in the least. It just requires that the "^[1]" be a reference to the article subject specifically stating that s/he is, in fact, what the article says they are. This seems to be clearly implicit in the policy regarding categories, but I've recently encountered an editor who's trying to insert "X is a Jew/Muslim/Christian^[1]" with the reference actually only being to various people CLAIMING that X is such based only on paternal parentage. This is unacceptable, per WP:BLPCAT, and my change was only to make it explicit instead of just implicit. Unitanode 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as what you're saying in the policy. Perhaps you should rephrase so as to make clear that those assertions must be properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

<---undent

I'm taking the liberty of c-and-p-ing my text here, so you can see what I mean:

Statements in the body of an article which would effectively put the article subject in a given category (i.e. "John Doe is a Muslim", "John Doe is gay", etc.) are also forbidden, except given the above two scenarios.

This is simply saying that if you want to make a definitive statement about a person's religion or sexuality in the article body, it needs to be explicitly stated by the person in the source referenced, just as is required of categorizations in the text immediately preceding where I inserted my addition. Unless this is explicitly stated as part of the BLPCAT policy, there are those who will try to circumvent this by posting refs that are simply other people claiming "X" as a "member of the tribe", so-to-speak. Of course, this also violates WP:SYNTH, but making the relevant portion of BLP policy more explicit seemed a simpler way to go. Unitanode 22:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see any way that your statement can be read as not prohibiting "John Doe is a Muslim[1]" unless:

1. John Doe self-identifies as Muslim, and
2. [1] specifies both that John Doe is a Muslim and that it is important to his notability.

BLP requires only that [1] unenquivocally state that John Doe is a Muslim, and another source specifies that his religion is notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to simply type out what I was trying to place into BLPCAT. Unless (A) subject of article has clearly self-identified their religion or gender; and/or (B) it's part of the reason they're notable, then there should be not definitive statements in article text identifying them with a particular religious belief or sexual orientation. Perhaps you could help me phrase my addition more clearly to express this? Unitanode 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First, it needs discussion, even if it were clearly appropriate. Also, perhaps it should be in that section of WP:BLP, even so. However, the phrasing I would use is something convoluted like:

Referring to the religion or sexual orientation of a living person, unless:

(A) the subject of the article has self-identified their religion or gender preferences, and we have an identifiable source for that statement, or

(B) it's part of the reason they're notable, and the statement is tagged with a reference to a reliable source,

it should not appear.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I could certainly live with that. It's just that there is an editor who refuses to see that BLPCAT's precluding of categories without reliable sourcing should apply even MORESO to actual article text. I thought that perhaps making it redundantly clear that article text is more visible (and thus more sensitive) than categories was necessary. Unitanode 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoagland article

Hi Arthur, wikipedia is about a neutral presentation of material from many angles, so the reader can set his own opinion. Opinions of editors should be transparent, agree?

Hoagland deserves an unbiased, respectful presentation of himself and his body of work, likewise the response from his serious opponents. I quote Hoagland to my best ability and try to present his cause unbiased. Your and others subjectivity reflect in words like "manipulation" and "opinion-mill" and revert of his actual focus, his "hyperdimensional nonsense". To me, the article radiates an urge to discredit Hoagland, which I find disrespectful, and it is you, the administrator, who I feel must be a just and decent advocate of neutrality. Hoagland states on many occasions that his theories are not supported by mainstream scientists.

Please, let us cooperate. I hope you can update yourself on Hoaglands work and maintain objectivity. If you think I'm biased or unjust, let me know.

Dubiten (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is "manipulation" and "hyperdimensional nonsense". I didn't like "opinion-mill", but I've used up my 3RR reverting your unsourced "examined" and "research". However, "hyperdimensional" shouldn't be in the lead unless it really is his sole focus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your DMOZ entry deletion

You said what I said was demonstrably false: Arthur, prove it then, don't just use pretense, and what what is your evidence that the editors I mentioned are still alive being that I didn't reference any specific editors? Do you know what the word evidence means? Hint: It doesn't mean whatever you say is demonstrably false, if it is, demonstrate it, don't just claim it. On top of that Arthur, why didn't you just remove the reference to the blogger, and ask for me to cite my source, rather than assuming? You've demonstrated then a non-neutral point of view. You may want to cut that out before it becomes apparent that you are biased against Christians and creationists or in favor of DMOZ.Whiplashes (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Drive by Opinionating at AE

Sir Arthur:

Your comments on the ae discussion and (911 pages) have some history of violating common sense and changing the topic.

While we are happy to have your personal view, you may have noticed that other editors are giving reasons for their views, a step that helps people weigh the merits of the question. The below disruptive comment with your signature seems to border on almost being your own personal fantasy.

It seems to be the only thing reliable we have about their origins.

A group's website is a) not a favored source with respect to itself, and b) has absolutely no implication for the group's origins, c) is subject to confusion, debate and controversy, and d) you are cherry picking a data point that is contradicted by a news source, a reliable source (which has already been posted in the question).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

Did you not notice that source ? Did you not notice the editors gave reasons and substance for their views relevant to the question?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be allowable if recognized on Channel 26's web site or if published by a user properly identified as Channel 26 or the program. It would be marginally usable as an indication of Richard Gage's views (not that of ae911) if he acknowledges it. Otherwise, it should be gone. I haven't read the so-called justififications since I've been on vacation, but none of the ones I had seen in July justified inclusion.

YouTube videos should never be used unless authorized. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Explanation is actually an important concept right along with "argument" in the field of critical thinking, Arthur. I do not think this is your particular area of focus (not taking a shot... you are a mathematician correct?). I, on the other hand have a certificate in teaching critical thinking. I have explained "explanation" many times. Perhaps you could leave that section for others with a special interest in that area. (See also Category:Critical thinking) Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't. "Argument" has a formal meaning in mathematical logic, although different from the standard English, and probably the philopsophical definitions. "Explanation" does not. If you assert (and have consensus for) Category:Critical thinking being part of Category:Logic, it makes sense. Otherwise, not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to respond, but your response is not clear at all.

No, I haven't what?

Argument meaning inputs to a variable is completely irrelevant to the logic template. The fact that you even bring it up at all is troubling and makes me think you are confused.

Yes, "explanation" is an important topic in the field of critical thinking. Yes, I do know whereof I speak on the issue, having actually stood in front of a class and covered it.

Is it your impression that critical thinking is not part of logic? I think you are alone in that (but then again I wouldn't put anything past you and whoever else is paying attention), and again, I am troubled by what appears to me as confusion/and/or narrowness on your part. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, pick up a modern day textbook on the subject. It's not even called "informal logic" anymore... it's "critical thinking." Entertain the notion that you may be missing something. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are imposing your view on the template, as usual, without credible support. As it stands, it's a mish-mash of formal logic and "informal" logic (possibly aka "critical thinking"); as those fields have very little in common, the template should be split.

I misread the line it was in, so I suppose it belongs there. However, there's a good case that the "informal logic" topics should not be in the same template as the formal logic topics, and the 2008 arguments that mathematical concepts shouldn't be templated seem reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Portraying this a POV as you always do has grown tiresome. I do believe that the template could use a major reorganization, however due to ownership issues by yourself and others, I have delayed in getting to that. For starters, perhaps you and CBM could insert a "Boolean algebra" section, which I have no interest in pushing any POV about. However, I do believe that readers will benefit from it.

I do not agree that informal and formal belong separate, as you well know from the whole WP:Logic project scope debate. I am pretty firm in my belief that it is not any academic concern that causes this issue, but rather refusal to "work and play well with others" on the part of the mathematicians. Perhaps your own water fountains also?

I forgive you for today's misunderstanding about thinking it was the "core area" etcetera.

About your discussions about not having templated math concepts... I'm sure you dutifully considered the perspective of the the hapless student trying to learn via Wikipedia? I'm pretty sure templates are very useful to such people. I don't think you consider this factor at all Arthur. I think it is very selfish and narcissistic to only contribute to WP for an audience of learned academians, and ignore the needs of people trying to learn with little background. WP is meant for a wide audience of people, many with little background. That's why we have those wikilinks. Be well, Arthur (I'm not trying to be a jerk, however I am sincere in my criticism of your ways, and I hope you consider this factor in the future). Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave a fairly detailed replied to your concerns on Category talk:type theory

Archived discussion, please reply at Category talk:type theory

As a general observation: if the Carl Hewitt affair had not gone so wrong here (for which there is plenty of blame to spread around), perhaps more than a handful of theoretical computer scientists would be editing this site, and instead of this discussion we would have had a decent article on type theory that would resemble the one on SEP, instead of the sorry affair it is here today. Pcap ping 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(For all his faults Hewitt wrote some decent articles on topics of sufficiently interest, e.g. domain theory, which is pretty much the same article today as he wrote it, besides the treatises he then wrote on his own research. Contrast that with the unreadable stuff produced by the "professional Wikipedian" Wvbailey on random access machine, which spends plenty of time defending his work -- compare that article with the presentation of a RAM in S. Barry Cooper's book for instance.) Pcap ping 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Even so, type theory in mathematics is completely different than in theoretical computer science, so should have different articles and categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And which articles should appear in the mathematical category but not in the CS one? Pcap ping 05:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably mathematical structure, ordered pair, setoid?, possibly principal type, System F, tuple (if split), unit type (I don't understand it in either context), and, of course, the parent article, type theory, which doesn't refer to computer science types at the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see, you're missing quite a few things here, so I'll have to go over them:

• Ordered pair is a particular case of tuple thus product type, so I don't see how it isn't of interest to computer science, although one often needs higher-arity tuples in CS, so you might have a case that a computer scientist need not read ordered pair, although that a really a splittist view. The same goes for splitting tuple. I think the tuple article is good exactly because it covers all aspects, including the relationship between the notions in set and type theory. I understand however that some of the stuff may be distracting to you as a mathematician. But it's usually easy to filter out: it's in separate sections etc.
• As for System F (aka universal types), there's an entire chapter about it as a theory in TaPL, and another on implementing it (which I've added to System_F#Further_reading).
• Setoids are of interest in Martin-Löf type theory, and there are some academic programming languages (or rather proof assistants) based on it (since all programs in that theory are terminating). Did you see that setoid has an external link for an implementation in Coq? No offense, but I think you don't have enough experience in the are of functional programming to make a judgment of what's not interesting to CS, given that you don't understand what unit type is for (I'd be happy to clarify the article by the way, I worked on ti recently and I thought it was accessible)...
• Topics that would be of interest only to mathematicians are Russel's ramified type theory and New Foundations (why aren't those in the cat, by the way?). Even with these, there aren't a lot of articles in the math-only that category, so I think it's normal to keep the bulk of the stuff in Category:Type theory. If you feel it's really necessary, add Category:Type theory (mathematics) and put in it only those topics of interest to you. Probably the best thing to do is to make it a {{distinguished subcategory}}, i.e. those items should appear in the main Category:Type theory too. I don't think Category:Type theory (computer science) is necessary.
• It's true that type theory as it stands it caters almost entirely to mathematicians. I don't mind if you renamed it to type theory (mathematics) to make way for type theory (computer science), although this would be pointless at the moment since we don't have a CS-based (and by that I mean LICS perspective; type system is too PLT oriented. Sørensen and Urzyczyn are both theoretical computer scientists, but their book is not focused on some CS application of type theory; and neither is Bart Jacobs Categorical logic and type theory book. There's plenty of material from which to give a purely theoretical view of type theory from the (LI)CS perspective, but I'm not volunteering to write one at the moment. Give how little material we actually have on type theory as whole on this wiki I think splitting the main article wold be a mistake however. Until I added the connection the STT stuff in that article made no mention of simply typed lambda calculus, although there are plenty of books written by mathematicians that cover that aspect.
• By the way, you can't tell from our article on the Curry–Howard correspondence (because it's too basic), but all the corners of the lambda cube have significant correspondents in (intuitionistic) logic, which again appear to be of no interest to you. I see it's actually covered at Curry–Howard_correspondence#General_formulation, but just not using the terminology I searched first searched for. By the way, does that explain unit type from your perspective?
  • I hope you're not bent on splitting that article too because Hugo Herbelin wrote the general view and you don't care about it.
• My general impression that's not worth my time contributing to this wiki is only strengthened by the fact that I had to explain all that. At least I hope that something good will come out of it... Pcap ping 07:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You give some replies here and some over there. I'm about to copy this stuff to keep it all in one place, and possibly serve as future reference. Sorry for the reapeated yellow bars you probably experienced... Pcap ping 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AE - Please Don't Undermine the 'Compromise' Discussion

Arthur, would you be willing to wait until editors have had a chance to discuss my proposal before undermining that proposal by placing my language in a different section? I think it would be a great help to the collaborative process.

Also, in stating your positions, please cite the appropriate WP guideline. That way, editors can evaluate the merits of your claim and engage with you rationally. Many thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Only two editors, both of the "Truther" persuasion, agreed to the "compromise" even in part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Link request pertaining to template:Cultural gens

Rubin, I looked around and tried to find the discussion on the nomination for the deletion for the previous generations template that you referred to here and in the talk page for {{Cultural gens}}, could you please paste a link here? Thanks! Nasa-verve (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done there. Sorry about the delay, but it's rather difficult to get Wikipedia search to do something that elaborate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, here you refer to a single purpose account who made edits on List of generations. Who was that? Nasa-verve (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TreadingWater (talk · contribs) seems to be the latest blatent incarnation of the serial single-purpose account. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Hi,

You have just reversed a change, stating that it is a BLP violation to state that this person began as a psychic entertainer, and not a Magician.

This person has passionately denied that he is a magician, and calls himself a psychic entertainer, mentalist performer, or mystic performer.

I took out this claim that he is a magician, because I feel that it is in breach of BLP, as it is giving him a title of "magician" that he openly disagrees with.

There is nothing to say legally that this person is a "Magician" and it is a title which he does not agree with, so I do not understand why this is a title that should be given to him, and I cannot see how this would not be classed as a BLP violation?

Thank you

Moondial (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We would need a reference to what he was called then (not necessarily what he called himself), not what he is called now. I think I would agree to removal of the job description or selection of a neutral term, rather than insisting on "magician", but we don't have a source for "psychic entertainer" from that time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Randi calls Geller a "magician", doesn't he? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see.

Thank you for explaining.

Moondial (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Randi calls him a LOT of things, but Randi did not call him a magician then, Randi did not begin making claims about Uri Geller until a lot later. Talking of what people called him at the time, many people called him a psychic, and many sources can be given which give him various descriptions - so I feel either no job description should be used, or a much more generic description such as "entertainer" or "performer" Moondial (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You state that I am adding unsourced information, yet most of the information in this article, is incorrect, and unsourced, and a lot of it is also potentially libelous. Just have a read through the article, it's is full of opinion, most of it without source.

Uri Geller was born Uri Geller, NOT György, there has been no source given to prove that he was called György - yet every time this has been corrected it is reverted back to the incorrect name. Why?

I have obtained a copy of Uri Gellers birth certificate, which I am scanning in & will add as a source to prove the fact. But I am confused as to why I should have to do this, when the current information that I am changing, is itself not sourced?Moondial (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

You have once again reverted my changes concerning Uri Gellers birth name, and now you have stated that is correct according to IMDB, however you do not cite this source in the article?

The information on IMDB is incorrect, and I personally am surprised that you are using IMBD as a source of information.

You have also given me a 24 hour edit ban for being in an "edit war" with another editor, yet the editor who I'm apparently in this edit war with - is yourself, so have you given yourself the same ban? Moondial (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem.

1. I just added IMDB as a source for the name, which seems acceptable for that information, although it's not in general reliable.
2. There was a source for the name, which you kept while deleting the name. I was considering removing that source and tagging your information as unsourced as well, but IMDB seems adequate now.
3. Considering the number of faked Kenyan birth certificates for Obama, I don't think a scanned birth certificate with a different name would be adequate here.

And I warned you that if you revert 4 times within 24 hours, you may be blocked. I haven't blocked you, and won't as in involved editor. Your interpretation of the standard warning suggests that you do not have an adequate command of English to edit Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And, also, you edited messages that I replied to above. This may make my replies inappropriate. Please don't do that, per WP:TALK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

>>I was considering removing that source and tagging your information as unsourced as well, but IMDB seems adequate now.

If IMDB is not in general reliable, then why do you feel it is an acceptable source for this information?

>>There was a source for the name, which you kept while deleting the name.

Please do not tell me that the source you're referring to is the link to the James Randi blog, in which he states that a friend told him he had looked into it and found that "his original name appears to have been “Gellér György.” Do you class this as a reliable source, someone who's hobby is attempting to debunk Uri Geller, stating that someone told him that he thinks that this is his birth name?

>>:#Considering the number of faked Kenyan birth certificates for Obama, I don't think a scanned birth certificate with a different name would be adequate here.

So, you don't think a birth certificate is adequate, yet a link to a blog in which someone mentions what a friend once told them, was adequate - and the IMDB post, which you have admitted is unreliable, is also adequate - yet a copy of Uri Geller's Birth certificate is not adequate?

In this case, please do tell me what you would see as adequate evidence?

>>And I warned you that if you revert 4 times within 24 hours, you may be blocked. I haven't blocked you, and won't as in involved editor. Your interpretation of the standard warning suggests that you do not have an adequate command of English to edit Wikipedia.

OK, so you warned me that I may be blocked, but it was yourself that I was engaged in this "editing war" with, and prior to this warning, in which it is stated that I should try to engage with the editor - I had already tried to engage with the editor - you - so why did you not take your own advice, and engage with me about this rather than continuing to make repetitive edits yourself?

>>Your interpretation of the standard warning suggests that you do not have an adequate command of English to edit Wikipedia.

My misinterpretation of a standard warning suggests that I am human.... I am new to Wikipedia & am just learning the ropes, is this kind of attitude appropriate from someone who is obviously an experienced editor?

>>And, also, you edited messages that I replied to above. This may make my replies inappropriate. Please don't do that, per WP:TALK.

I did not edit the messages in any way which effected the meaning of your answers.Moondial (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Before we get locked in an editing war....

Please explain to me further, what you mean by your reason to undo my edit: "that source has enough errors as to violate WP:BLP with respect to Randi"?

Firstly, the source does not mention James Randi. Secondly, the text edited, has absolutely nothing to do with James Randi - the text edited is to do with whether it should be stated that "Geller Says" he is related to Sigmund Freud, or that he his - and the source cited, is to show a source other than Uri Geller himself, stating that he is a relation.

So, please explain to me how the source violates BLP in respect James Randi?

Also, what errors does the source have - and where is the proof of these errors?

As I have seen in many other of your edits, you seem to base your edits on opinion, and on what you believe, rather than on fact.

Moondial (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It happens that, in fact, Randi was one of the "team of scientists", and they did discover Uri cheated. Together with the source clearly being written by a publicist rather than any attempt at objectivity, which makes the source unreliable if disputed. I (and Randi) dispute it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation

An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Y Generation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2000s vandalism

Hi Arthur

Was quite surprised to see that you called my additions the 2000s decade page "vandalism". I think this is way too harsh Arthur. This term is generally reserved for people who deliberately cause damage to a page with inaccurate or misleading information - this was not the case and was certainly NOT my intention. If you disagree with additions to pages that you have an interest in you can simply begin a discussion with the person who wrote it or simply change it.

I was adding what I felt to be some useful background to flesh out what was already there. I felt that this was worthy of inclusion particularly as it was actual examples of where the Naughties word was used prior to the start of the decade - surely a worthy inclusion? If you wanted to remove it or question you can easily have messaged me or started a talk section. To call a simple addition "vandalism" upfront without taking any time to consider or question it, does not seem fair or in the Wikipedia tradition. Is there any way you would re-consier this? Would you like me to re-write it differently? Do you want to have a go at re-writing about what I added?  :-) Please advise. --Mapmark (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism" may be a little harsh, but adding information removed by 3 different editors doesn't seem exactly colleagial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:MathTopicTOC

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

--Cybercobra (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

I know this is probably the wrong place to ask this but how do you get userboxes on your user page? Robo37 (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Only the babel-boxes are centrally located, but you can look on my page (the sections with {{userbox}}) for examples. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Geese with treats

Arthur, please don't remove anything that I wrote on the internet about greeting geese with treats. It won't hurt anyone. And when people see it, they'll stop and think "wait, did I just read that?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.176.189 (talk • contribs) 08:43, September 4, 2009

I didn't remove the geese. Please check to make sure your geese are in a row before commenting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

matrix exponential, Chinese Remainder Theorem

Dear Arthur Rubin,

On the history page ot the matrix exponential entry (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matrix_exponential&action=history )

you wrote:

"16:45, 5 September 2009 Arthur Rubin (Undid revision 311798547 by Milolance nonsense; the "obvious" statement, by the Chinese - Remainder Theorem, is false)"

Could you be more precise?

Yours,

Milolance (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PS For your convenience I'm pasting the deleted text.

We shortly prove that the above definition of the exponential of X does make sense. We will work in a slightly more general setting. This will create no additional difficulty, and will be useful later.

Let B be a finite dimensional $\mathbb {C}$-algebra, let b be in B, let f be an entire function, and form the series

$\sum _{k\geq 0}\ {\frac {f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}}\ b^{k}.$

Our first claim is that this series converges. Denote its sum by f(b). Our second claim is that $f\mapsto f(b)$ is a $\mathbb {C}$-algebra morphism. Our third claim is that the derivative of f(tb) with respect to the real variable t exists and satisfies

${\frac {d}{dt}}\ f(tb)=b\ f'(tb)=f'(tb)\ b.$

We can assume that $B=\mathbb {C} [b]$ for obvious reasons, and also that there is a complex number a and a positive integer m such that (b-a)^m=0 by the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Then the above series is easily seen to converge to

$\sum _{k=0}^{m-1}\ {\frac {f^{(k)}(a)}{k!}}\ (b-a)^{k},$

and the three claims are clear.

— Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The result is false

which result? (For your convenience I pasted above the deleted text) — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

if the polynomial has any repeated roots, and there's nothing modulo integers, so the CRT doesn't apply.

The link I gave is Chinese_remainder_theorem#Statement_for_general_rings. I was referring to the statement for general rings — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be more precise, you left out a step involving ideals in the formal polynominal ring C[X]. As you didn't mention C[X], only C[b],

I identify C[b] to C[X]/(P), where P is the minimal polynomial of b, and apply the CRT (for general rings) to the ring C[X] and the ideal (P) — Milolance (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That identification is non-trivial. My comment below still stands, that "normed" is easier to work with than finite-dimensional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the CRT argument is more elementary and gives you a method for computing f(A), but it applies to a less general setting than the norm argument. I'd be more than happy if the norm argument was inserted into the matrix exponential entry — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

it's not clear to me what the step is nor whether this proof should be here.

Finally, the simplest proof the the power series converges works in any normed C- or R-algebra.

Don't you need a completeness assumption? — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why a GL(n,C)

Don't you mean M(n,C)? — Milolance (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

is normed is not immediately obvious, but that step is fairly short, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Axiom of choice articles

I felt that a certain part of this converastion should only continue on your talk page. You wrote:

I apologize for the WP:COI accusation; perhaps I'm too sensitive, but I don't feel comfortable editing complex relationships involving the axiom of choice where my parents are/were the expert. [...] Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that your restraint is commendable; especially since we lack articles on Herman Rubin and Jean Rubin (I assume you're referring to them). We have people in positions of power here that wrote puffery-laden biographies on their rather more obscure selves, as well as their parents. Some eventually got deleted, some are still around. I also avoided editing biographies or topics researched/engineered by people I've known personally in non-trivial contexts, except for one occasion where a piece of work was incorrectly attributed on this wiki to only one of two coauthors of a paper (the paper wasn't even cited). I feel however that this is a personal choice rather than directly mandated by some policy/guideline. Others are far less restrained. I also edited under my real name until I realized there are a bit too many crackpots editing here, and that I occasionally have to confront some of them... Pcap ping 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Generation F

Hello Arthur Rubin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Generation F has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary '(decline prod, already PROD'ed once)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Jim Hawkins, BBC Radio Shropshire

I am the above named, and the subject of the page which you've been editing

A Wikipedia user, at my request, deleted the page about me. It's riddled with inaccuracies, and it's completely pointless. Why did you bring it back?

More amusingly, you seem to struggle to tell the difference between so-called 'vandalism' and actual facts about me

As the page is inaccurate, please return it to its deleted state ASAP

If you wish to discuss this, I can be reached at jim.hawkins@bbc.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.111.57 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can explain why the sources we had in place are not generally considered reliable, (being "incorrect" is not adequate reason for deletion), then the article should remain as it was. Of course, if you can provide reliable sources that the information presented in the article is incorrect, we can add that, also. Finally, you, and people editing at your request, should not edit your article, per WP:AUTO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After consideration, I removed the record label as being unsourced and not listed in google. However, the awards section seems adequately referenced, and arguably adequate for listing. If you wish to propose that the article be deleted, per WP:AfD, I'll assist you in preparing the nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still wrong, Arthur. I have no idea what WP:AfD means, but if you can get the article deleted, I'd be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.111.57 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AfD = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion; we have a formal process for requesting deletion. Now, I don't know if you (as an IP-address editor) can complete step 2, but I believe you can. If you specify exactly the reasons you want the article deleted, I'll create a formal AfD request; if the reasons for deletion are considered to outweigh the reasons for not deleting the article, the article will be deleted after at least 7 days. It should also be noted that incorrect information which is not adequately sourced can be removed immediately, per the policy WP:BLP. I still think the Sony award section is adequately sourced, and leans toward keeping the article, but I won't comment in the deletion debate.

I need to head out now. I should be able to set up the deletion request within 2 hours, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arthur; sorry I didn't get back to you last night. Can't we do this by email?

I want the article deleted because it's wrong, it keeps getting edited with further inaccuracies added, and as the subject of the article I don't see why it should exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"For": The possible, the practical, and the likely

I gather from explanation of your edit in Generation Y [26] that you have not been the webmaster of a large online knowledgebase, or had access to its statistical usage reports. The idea that "everything might be useful to someone" does not take in account that inserting information, while useful to some, is unuseful to others. In fact, one of the main jobs of a knowledgebase editor is to direct the largest number of readers most efficiently to the information they seek.

It's unfortunate in several respects that Wikipedia's web stats are not available to editors. For example, as I've noted on my page, links in large websites are nowhere near as effective as people who are only familiar with the statistics of small websites imagine them.[27] Perhaps as an administrator you are in a position to at least get this statistical information for administrators?

In terms of {{for}} tagging, Wiki is strangely fortunate that more spammers and vandals haven't realized the opportunity for causing problems here. Generation Y was accessed 150,000 times last month.[28] Generación_Y was accessed no more than 250 times. And, if you will allow me an observation from years of webmastering, there's a good chance that not only were many of those page views redirected from "Generation Y", but that many of those redirected were uninterested in the material. Say, as a reasonable guess, 150 came from "Generation Y". That makes the ratio of readers who really meant to read "Generation Y" to those who were misdirected 1,000 to 1. It's far more likely (and again without statistical reports you may want to take my word) that readers who meant to type "Generation X" or "Generation Z" landed on the "Generation Y" page. I.e., in a professional situation, I would add "for" links not to the writer of a blog, but to "Generation X" and "Generation Z".

You see the trap. There's no easy way to guess how Wiki searchers are misdirected, this leads editors to add links which make the overall problem worse, while optimizing a small one. That's where the search function is appropriate, since search engine engineers are largely concerned with just such optimization.

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Uri Geller Page

Please stop undoing the edit with ref the incorrect information on the youtube video. I have discussed this on the talk page, and I have cited a reliable source which backs this up - three times! Please see ref 72, or the link I have pasted three times into the talk page.

Eveything which has been written about this case is wrong, and it is proven with this source. The case - as described on the legal paperwork - was about a video which included Uri Geller's doctor, and was nothing to do with the compass clip.

Moondial (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be wrong, but it's in the reliable source exactly as stated. It should not be removed unless there are reliable sources to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative search of parasitic numbers

Arthur, you think this section is orginal reserach? It is a simple mathematics to prove that it works! Try to look at this section that I added and repeating decimal again and examine the mathematics. It is very simple! Please post any discussion to my user talk page or Talk:Parasitic number. Thank you. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, all parasitic numbers are derived from repeating decimals. Can you find any that is not repeating decimals? If you can find one then I will agree to you deletion. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, any n-parasitic number corresponds to a period of a repeating decimal with denominator 10n−1, or to ${\frac {k}{10n-1}}\left(10^{m}-1\right)$ (although I'm not sure that k is less than 10.) I don't consider "derived from" as necessarily accurate. The construction in the lede doesn't use rational numbers directly at all, but reverse long division. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if derived from is not accurate, then I repeat my sentence: As a matter of fact, all parasitic numbers are repeating decimals.

Kindly look at my construction. I could make it longer to include long division (as in repeating decimal section) to make it more obvious to the general public; or simplify the following up paragraphs. The fact is this construction is much simpler! I wish to add the section back.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. To the extent your addition is correct, it's handled in the previous section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which part is obsolutely wrong? Can you make it clearer? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm curious why you called this diff a reversion of "vandalism". Maybe the see-also link wasn't sufficiently on-topic, maybe it wasn't, but it looked like a good-faith edit to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong button. It was a spam-link, but not vandalism. Let me try to make amends. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt

Hi! Listen, can you please explain to me why the fact that jennifer sang the song used for the soundtrack of Sailor Moon is not appropriate? I added that beacuse I really think it makes part of her musical career and of course this element is verifiable, so I wanted to know why you reverted that edit. Waiting for an answer! :-) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt (talk • contribs) 10:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It didn't seem important. But, I probably won't remove it if you add it again, with a reference. (And, if, by chance, you are related to Ms. Hewitt, you shouldn't be editing the article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the RFC, a substantive change to wikipedia policy pages requires a lot more than four or five editors who happen to be on the page at the time agreeing to it. Policy changes need broad community consensus. Hence the RFC. See WP:CONLIMITED andWikipedia:Policy#Life_cycle, therefore this RFC provides an opportunity to say what you think is the best policy - and to test whether there really is consensus for a change like this. Xandar 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you do not know the subject well, please kindly study before you start deleting others people hard work. The {main|Repeating decimal} has been kept at cyclic number article for four months and has met many users' approval. In fact, the cyclic numbers were brought out and described in Repeating decimal though without a proper heading long ago before other users created the article cyclic number. I think you have put in hard work for parasitic number and does not wish to see a simple approach proposed by other. What do I call that? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You may just follow after me everywhere and undid all my work. What type of behavior is that? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see your "simple" approach as being either simple or completely correct. What's wrong with the approach already there?
• {{main}} as a hat-note is correct, anyway; it means that the section is a summary of the article of which the note pointed to. I think a {{see also}} might be better, if that's the impression you want to get across.
• Yes, I did undo all your work which was incorrect or inappropriate. When I see errors made by an editor, I often check other related edits by that editor to see if similar errors were made. I checked each (sequence of) your edits before reverting them, to see if the article was better before or after the sequence. It's possible I would have found some intermediate edits as improvements to the article(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I approve the existing approach and add a second, simpler approach. You heart does not allow a second approach. Any persons who study the three subjects in details would agree with me that the other two are the sub-subjects of repeating decimal, except you who has special interest with parasitic number. You first disagreed that parasitic number is related to repeating number and refuse to link it to cyclic number. When you finally agreed, you refused to acknowledge that it is a sub-subject. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1. None of cyclic number, parasitic number, nor repeating decimal are exactly sub-subjects of each other, because of the 0-convention on parasitic number for the first two. They have material in common.
2. Your rephrasing is (1) WP:OR and (2) neither simpler nor non-duplicative of the existing approach.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

you did not answer my question, my second approach is wrong? Ask a third party's opinion before you start deleting! What about the section heading? Do they make the article more confusing? Ask a third opinion!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is good pretext quoting WP:OR and start to delete another person's work. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a source? If not, it's WP:OR as we define it. However, the approach there is WP:OR, also, so I shouldn't have said that. Regardless, it's not simpler than the approach above, which does refer to repeating decimals. As I now posted on the Talk:parasitic number, I suggest a mathematical approach not using repeating decimals directly. I think perhaps this should be used instead of the approach now there, and some merger of your approach and the approach there as an alternative (but not necessarily simpler) alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You have totally fogoten forgotten that the method is verifiable. It is easy to verify it. If you can't verify it does not mean other people cannot verify it. Your heart does not allow other people to edit the article. You quoted that you deleted it because my writing was wrong. You never pointed out my mistake. What is the mistake in 'simplified approach'? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable, in this context, means that there is a source, not that we can derive it. And it's NOT simplified; it's more complex, and uses a different, unnecessarily complicated, mathematical method. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A new philosophy / approach is always thought as being complicated. It is however necessary to learn new thinking / tools / methods for a new perspective. Once the new technique has been mastered, we always have a broader perspective and do not necessarily think that it is complicated. Look at my approach, how many lines of mathematics do I need? Single line. The rest are just reasoning. One of my hobby was having fun with cyclic numbers when I was young, more than 30 years back. So I can claim that I know the subject well. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree that it's simpler; and I don't think you'll gain anything by arguing precedence with me, as I have published papers more than 40 years back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cylcic number is obviously a sub-topic of repeating decimal. So you still disagree with this fact. Sigh! Did you read User:Ling Kah Jai/Other cyclic permutations? Repeating decimal has explanation on the occurrence of all these numbers. Can the 'direct approach / algebra' explain why? Still not convinced? sigh! Why do we learn group theory, which is more complicated, beside algebra? Following your argument, there is no need for a man to acquire any knowledge, just fall back to whatever he knows. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Cyclic number is obviously not a sub-topic of repeating decimal, although it is related. As well say that cyclic number is a subtopic of primitive root, as there is a n-digit cyclic number if and only 10 is a primitive root modulo n. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I continue to argue with you on the matter of topic and subtopic, it is your words against my words. It is more important for other people to judge. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided that:

1. my method is not wrong;
2. nor repetivierepetitive; and
3. it is verifiable;

then you shall not defy me to add in the method.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Either you don't read repeating decimal or you read and don't understand. Sigh!--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On the HAARP controversy

Hello Arthur Rubin,

You reverted two paragraphs, I (79.246.72.240 and 79.246.55.181) had added at the 15th of September to the article about the ionosperic heater facility near Gakona, Alaska (HAARP). You described Your change laconically:

'Not relevant to this article'

You further added a link to the WIKIPEDIA guideline 'Assume good faith'.

As I disagree with Your action - mostly on the quotation I added - I approach You here, in order to discuss the matter. I created an account for this purpose.

My intention is to add verifiable sources to the claim, that ionospheric heater facilities are funded for military purposes - which appears to be the main reason, why such research programs are the subject of passionate political controversies.

As I am a newcomer to WIKIPEDIA, it might be easy to send me first to basic guidelines, why You think, my contributions to that article were 'not relevant'.
But if the disagreement is not based on formal aspects alone, I want to hear a more detailed argumentation from Your side, why these quotations should not be added to this article.

In the meanwhile, I will add these quotations in question to the talkpage of that article.

Christophmahler (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is a disinformation program about a Russian dual use facility in Antartica relevant to a US base in the artic? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Your quick reply !

I have not written about 'a Russian facility in Antarctica'. I wrote:

»The possible dual use of research and technology has been the target of disinformation campaigns before. The case against ionospheric research facilities reminds of the systematic exagerration of the Soviet military power by Team B in 1976.«

But I can see, that this paragraph does not help to clarify a possible military purpose of ionosperic heating facilities. The comparison expands the subject into another topic and appears almost like original research.
Therefore I can be content with leaving this paragraph aside.

Please have a look on the talk page of the article to see, why I would like to keep the second paragraph, which added a quotation from Klaus Dodds on ionospheric research programs and their relation to military communication. One major issue with this article seems to me the lack of verifiable sources and the resulting escalation of opposing views.

[29]

350 (organisation)

Is there a reason why the list of prominent members, as sourced to the site 350.org, may not appear in the article? ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We only have the organisation's word that they are members. I'm reminded of one of the 911 "Truth" organizations who listed people who may have questioned the mainstream analysis, but didn't actually support that organization's goals. But, even if we knew that these people really did support the organisation, the notability would still be questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe it violates WP:SELFPUB. — Spike (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Then how about "Some notable members of 350.org are xxxxx(cite), xxxxx(cite) and xxxxx(cite)." with cites being from RSes? ► RATEL ◄ 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems generally acceptable to me, but some editors are supplying sources about 350 which aren't RSs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick and dirty analysis of the verifiable references/citations that you may want to look at here. — Spike (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur, I don't know if you have an axe to grind on the global warming issue or not, bec. I have not had time to look at yr edit history, but I'm asking that if you do, please to desist from further involvement in that page, or take no sysop actions there. If you are non-aligned and dispassionate, by all means continue. What this page does not need is a admin-denier who wants to minimise or camouflage this important issue. Please, this is not meant to give offence and if it doesn't apply, ignore it. ► RATEL ◄ 01:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I see this diff. Arthur, please, desist. ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an axe to grind on the global warming issue, but it's a minor one. The results of the climate model haven't changed significantly since 1997, at which time the statistical analysis was clearly faulty, as could easily be seen by any applied mathematician or statistician.

Regardless of whether the analysis methods are now credible, the analysis estimating the CO2 "tipping point" being 350 ppm depends on the amount of methane and possibly of water vapor in the atmosphere, which also seems to have changed significantly since the industrial revolution. I don't buy it. I don't think an atmospheric scientist would buy it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it was decided that there were climate tipping points, but if there are 350ppm seems like a lowball estimate. (BTW, Hansen is an atmo sci who advocates 350.) -Atmoz (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2020s

Thanks for catching this. Missed it when I indef'd him. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

wtc collapse

Thankyou for your edit. I would say the following chaps are mainstream aren't they? [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.10.218 (talk • contribs) 01:05, September 18, 2009

Nope. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well they strike me as eminently qualified to pass judgement on the matter looking at their CV's. But by whom is the collapse theory accepted? NIST, FEMA, the mass media circus. People believe what they are told without believing what their eyes tell them. Nobody with a modicum of intelligence believes that wtc7 'fell down'. Danny Jowenko, Holland's leading controlled demolition ([[31]]) technologist with thirty years experience states the fact clearly: [[32]] 81.109.10.218 (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism

From the wikipedia pages: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, is not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism."

So when I add a youtube url on a page that is asking for expansion, that shows a person who is just mentioned talking on video, that would never be able to be called vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. More like the verification WP talks about in maintaining WP policy.

So please be so kind as to refrain from deleting my totally legitimate post, thank you.

I will be keeping copies of all this in case I need to contact WP directly if this is kept up.Veritee (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm still willing to consider it "good-faith", it's not legitimate. It's been removed by 2 other editors, not including the bot. Please refrain from adding it without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Military demolitions

are of course controlled demolitions, they don't just drop bombs on bridges, for example. But of course, we report the most stupid arguments, as long as they appear in sources that are supposed to be reliable.  Cs32en  00:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controlled demolition" implies (and our article implies) that they care about protecting adjacent structures. That's not the case for military demolitions, for the most part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controlled" simply means that the demolition is supposed to proceed in a pre-planned fashion. A number of non-military controlled demolitions take place outside of urban areas, where protecting adjacent structures is not an issue.  Cs32en  00:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple definitions of "controlled demolition", it would appear; but, unless the source uses the word "conventional" or clearly implies "conventional", we can't use it there. And we can use the most stupid arguments, such as Jones's (at least as reported in the Deseret News) — they only need be in a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Britannica has been taken over by philosophers

It doesn't even have an article on mathematical logic, but surely enough has one on metalogic: [33], and one on formal logic [34]. Amongst the authors there is Hao Wang, but then he passed away a while back. Morton L. Schagrin is listed as "Department of Philosophy, SUNY Fredonia-Emeritus" on the ACM Portal. No idea who The Rev. G.E. Hughes is. Pcap ping 13:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Renewable energy

The problem was, the bot didn't do its job: Compare Revision history of Talk:Renewable energy with Revision history of Talk:Renewable energy/Archive_4. The problem may have been a bug in Miszabot which has been causing problems and/or the blacklisted link I found when I did the archiving manually.
—WWoods (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought I saw an archived section today, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bazant paper

Hi Arthur,

Can you point me to the page where Bazant makes this statement in his paper?  Cs32en  13:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the (approximately) 8.4 is the correct number, so I'll fall back to "an order of magnitude". Thanks for pointing out the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the sentence! Here's the diff from my initial edit, which was reverted. The main problem is that Bazant doesn't exactly specify how he calculated the energy that "could be absorbed by limited plastic deformation and fracturing in the lower part". The other question is how a very large part the potential energy of the upper part can be transformed into kinetic energy (acceleration), with the remaining part of the energy still large enough to (a) crush the lower part (b) eject large portions of the material horizontally. Also, the three-point buckling mechanism seems unlikely for the grid-connected core columns. Btw, we should include the Bazant 2008 paper in the article, some of the statements of the 2001/02 papers are not really up to date.  Cs32en  14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you block a Carl Hewitt sock IP?

Special:Contributions/71.198.220.76 is trolling the talk page of Denotational semantics insisting we add some topic from a new paper of Carl Hewitt. The points raised are obscure and have been rejected by User:Sam Staton, and I agree with Sam's view. Carl appears to be using multiple IP addresses, so those may need a vacation as well; see this thread for obvious leads. I think my request is in accordance with the ArbCom post-case clarifications (you're probably aware of them, but just in case...) Pcap ping 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be considered "involved"; at least, my involvment was (as of last month) under review by an arbitrator. I think it best you find another admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know. If there's some on wiki discussion, could you point me to it? (Just curious, not doubting you.) As for the socks, I think I'll ask Ruud because he has some experience with those; I hope he's not considered involved as well... Pcap ping 21:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GPO

Dear Arthur: Actually the United States Government Printing Office (GPO) is part of the Legislative Branch, under Congress. There are very few agencies that are part of the Legislative Branch, with others being the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (formerly the General Accounting Office), the Architect of the Capitol, and so on. Your instinct is right, though: the vast majority of federal government agencies are indeed part of the Executive Branch. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling both Lord Arthur the Admin and Sir Arthur, the Years Guru

Arthur, take a look at this. I guess this kid decided to be bold, and he changed the name back, not knowing that there was consensus for the title he moved. But what is worse is that it looks like he may have allowed for two versions of the articles to continue existing. I.e., both 2000s (decade) and 2000-2009 now have their own, temporarily identical articles, which will now fork if all is not put to rights. And that, my good man, is what I hope you will do. Cheers! Unschool 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I'm afraid he also changed the protected year nav templates, so this might be considered a wheel war, but I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not duplicated. Both 2000s (decade) and 2000-2009 redirect to 2000–2009 (with an ndash). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No protected templates involved, and  Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in template

Dear, Arthur. Please, look at this. 2000s has link to page 20000–20009, but not 2000–2009 (in fact, 2000s (decade)). This also applies to 1800s, 1900s, etc. I sure that Template:EstablishmentsInDecade has error. Please, fix it, since you, unfortunately, don't accept my corrections. James Michael 1 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps, my latest change takes care of it for the moment. Using the proper subfunction of the {{year nav}} template might be even better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. James Michael 1 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Theorem of repeating decimal

I wish to refer you to Talk:Repeating_decimal#Theorem of repeating decimal. What is your opinion?--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Bianca Jagger

Hi, Arthur! The edit by 99.54.137.148 that you reverted in the Bianca Jagger article does not appear to be vandalism but a poorly worded statement. If you check 350's site per the citation, you'll see Ms. Jagger among the organization's supporters, who are in fact referred to as "Messengers." Hoping you don't mind, I'll revert your revert and also fix the statement, including determining where it would fit best. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not precisely vandalism, but it is both inadequately sourced (Bianca or a third party needs to confirm the association; considering the lies their supporters are posting here, it's not that much of a stretch to assume the organization lists people as supporters without consulting them) and not necessarily releant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do, hereby, demand full, complete, handicappism review of three years of edit & policy. Your racism, handicappism, must end, now.

Platinum Star

Hi

I have checked your contributions and the time you have spent with Wiki, and given you Platinum Star.

Cheers, Lamro (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

350

Nxxxn: Hello, This is Nxxxn. You undid a revision I made in the article 350 organization. You said that I gave 350's website and it contained a list and is non-RS. Even though a list from the website is given people can clearly see from the 350 website that the personalities given support 350. You are saying that for each person I have to give a different reference source. The reference source for majority of the people are in the 350 website. Many openly stated that they support 350 in the organization's website. You can remove the names of those people you are saying who does not support 350 and is not clear. Please let the name of the people who openly supported 350 be in the list I wrote. You can remove the personalities, whom you are saying have not clearly supported 350. While the reference website was given just below the heading then people can easily access and see that the personalities in the list are supporting 350. Let it be please!!! Remove the personalities who haven't clearly supported 350 according to the source!!! If, a specific RS for each name, then what if I include the same RS for all names? If so, I can write the website near all names as the RS for each. Then you can't say there is no RS for each name. Make the issue clear please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxxxn (talk • contribs) 19:01, September 19, 2009

I have many concerns...

• At least one person (then) on the list had stated that he supported the goal of 350 ppm, but not the organization.
• Including any living person on the list requires a separate reliable source, either clearly from the person in question, or from a reliable third-party source, under WP:BLP. WP:SELFPUB would normally allow an organization's web site to be a source for information about the organization, but subpoint 2 forbids including a list of supporters, solely sourced to the organization, if there is any question as to whether the individuals wish to be affiliated with the organization. Subpoint 4 is not really in serious question, although the one case mentioned above might make it not entirely certain.

I have other conceerns about the article, but those are my primary concerns about the list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nxxxn (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arthur. But You are wrong. You said "At least one person (then) on the list had stated that he supported the goal of 350 ppm, but not the organization". It's false. Vandana Shiva said, "I am completely behind the 350 campaign...." Rajendra Pachauri said, "....I am fully supportive of [350ppm]. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target". From the words of almost all others it is clear that they support 350 organisation. Indirectly, almost all stated they support 350. Why should one say directly? Supporting the goal of 350 is supporting the organization. You can't say no to it. It's common sense. If one supports or praises the deeds of a person or the aims of a person then he/she is supporting the person. He/she will be then liking the person. Will be with the person. It's not compulsory and not even nice in some circumstences to say "I like you" or "I love you". Many of us do love our parents. But how many of us say we love them directly. Almost all of us show it from our deeds. In this particular issue, from the words of almost all the people in the list we know they are supporting 350.

You also said, an organization's website can be used as the RS for an issue concerning the organization. But why the website can't be used in this particular issue? The website itself is the reference source for many of the personalities in the list. It clearly shows that almost all support 350. Some other RSs are also available for some personalities.

If separate reliable sources are required as you said, then what if I use the same RS for all the names that the source clearly gives evidence for the issue?

Nxxxn (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, May I please have an answer for the above questions!!!

If 350.org and the person both confirm the association, then they could be listed. A separate reliable source, though would probably be needed to support the notability of the association. Neither 350.org nor the person in question would qualify as a reliable source for the notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Virtual training

Hello Arthur Rubin, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Virtual training has been removed. It was removed by Pohta ce-am pohtit with the following edit summary '(Appears notable enough see http://books.google.com/books?q=%22virtual+training%22&btnG=Search+Books. Take to AfD instead.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pohta ce-am pohtit before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

unexplained CFS editing

Hi - I believe it was you who removed a para I added to the CFS page. Can you indicate any reason for your edits? They were rather odd as you deleted my contribution without explanation. This is odd since: 1. The WHO info I included has not been debated 2. It doesn't make sense to include the info on the original ME further down the page (and as it has no separate page, it's impossible to just link to it). It's important to make it clear right at the top that the original ME has vastly different criteria to the current CFS criteria, since otherwise ppl might form the opinion right from the 1st para that CFS=ME and might stop reading a few paras later, before encountering any later evidence indicating the contrary. Since, as you may know, there are some treatments for CFS that are known to be positively harmful for M.E. (such as GET), it is extremely important to try our best to prevent that happening. 210.79.21.2 (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

At best, the conclusion the CFS and ME are distinct is WP:SYN, even if it's correct. You would need to find a WP:RS that specifically states that they are different. In fact, even if what you wrote above is precisely correct, we wouldn't know thay were different — all we could say is that the original criteria for ME are different than the current criteria for CFS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Me: Some of the links I used contained info from doctors who have studied M.E. closely and describe it as having clinical features that are very different from those supported by the current CFS criteria. It's also undisputed, AFAIK, that the original criteria for ME differ from those currently used for "CFS", "CFS/ME", CFIDS, etc (and, obviously, different clinical features = different diseases). Nevertheless, I will rewrite the offending para and remove descriptions from it about "CFS" that go beyond those currently existing on the Wikipedia page, with the exception obviously of retaining the remark that "CFS" has no classification in WHO ICD-10. 210.79.21.2 (talk)210.79.21.2 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Billon

Hi. I have fixed some incoming links to Billon; fewer than 20 remain. Some of the links are in context that suggests the people writing those article don't know billon is an alloy. --Una Smith (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I'll take a look at them, also. Is Billon a sufficiently credible disambiguation page that AWB's disambiguation function will work on it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't use AWB; let me know how it works for you. --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary.

Just a tad. Maybe. . . . O.K., my summary went overboard. I guess I was in a bad mood and the various nutjobs and their theories had gotten on my nerves. I'll try to play nicer in the future. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

massive redirector

Thanks again. --Ciphers (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks --Ciphers (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respect the outcome of discussion

Hello. The merge discussion at Generation Y lasted for 1 month. Talk:Generation_Y#Proposed_Merger_of_MTV_Generation_into_this_article. The consensus was clearly keep. Please respect this, even when you disagree with it. Consider improving Wikipedia instead of destroying the works of others. You are free to nominate it for a merge again. However, perhaps your time would be better spent improving the current article? --Law Lord (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion wasn't clear, but it (MTV Generation) was a disambiguation page from September 2 through September 26, with no visible complaints. That seems some indication of consensus. I reopened it, rather than summarily reverting to the disambiguation page, but the consensus is not clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Hi, Arthur Rubin. You've violated 3RR on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (4 reverts and undos in the last 24 hours). Go carefully, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

Hello Arthur. I would appreciate if you could add some comments to the Neutrality in Question debate and the Revamping Dispute over the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on its talk page. Thanking you in advance. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet More Problematic Editing by Arthur Rubin

My 3RR warning and other comments to you below are about your edits, not you personally:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generation Jones. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) As the editor right above these comments also notes (re. NamingConventions), you have a pattern of ignoring Wiki rules like 3RR, Arthur Rubin. I have seen you ignore 3RR and other Wiki rules numerous times. Do you believe because you somehow were able to become an administrator that you are above the rules? And then, you have the nerve to threaten me, and others, about 3RR?! And the gall of you to threaten blocking my account! First of all, you are way too involved personally to take any administrative action against me, and secondly, you are fully aware that there would be no basis to block me. I have tried over and over to discuss these issues with you, Arthur Rubin. You have consistently revealed your very limited knowledge about these generational topics. You have consistently ignored compelling unequivocal evidence. You have consistently shown bad faith, relied on technicalities, and in numerous other ways tried to misrepresent the truth about these topics to Wiki readers. if your memory is suddenly failing you, I would urge you to read back through the talk pages of these different generation pages to confirm the truth of my comments here. Now you deceptively try to make the claim that a consensus of editors supports your view?! Completely ridiculous and you know it. You are the one pushing an edit war here, Arthue Rubin. Frankly, you should be ashamed of this and your editing behavior of yours, especially snce you are an administrator. Truth is on my side. If you can provide evidence which refutes the overwhelming evidence which fills these talk pages supporting my edits, then provide such evidence. Otherwise, please stop pushing edit wars, and making bad faith uninformed edits.TreadingWater (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are reverting to versions from around the time of your block, 3 months ago, which were corrected to the current version (with some disputes as to dates) for most of that time. I don't recall seeing any edits adding Generation Jones while you were blocked; this seems to suggest a consensus for removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3 complaint about you

Could you clarify "TreadingWater is reverting to the consensus of his sock puppets." Can you provide a link to any sock case that might clarify this? There is a tendency for baffling 3RR cases to be avoided by any passing admin who might otherwise want to do something. If you add more of your reasoning on the noticeboard, that would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Some clarification added. I don't recall what the evidence of sock puppetting was, but the only edits he made were promoting Generation Jones and reducing the Baby Boom Generation to what is generally considered the first half of the demographic baby boom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Famous Members

Please clarify why members of a generation, such as Generation X, Baby Boomers, and The Silent Generation would not be acceptable to be listed. On my first attempt, I tried to make a diverse list of members with age, sex, race, and field. Because this list was noted as too long or possible personal opinion, the was removed. On my second attempt, I listed on 4 members and made references to back up the claim they are famous. Again, these were removed with only the note that they were removed again. Because of the length of these three generations pages, The Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and even sub categories such as Generation Jones, there should be an equal amount of information on each. Otherwise, it would suggest Generational Warfare. I also think that some widely recognized members of The Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, the sub generation known as Generation Jones, and Generation X should be noted especially when there is a material backing up the claim they are famous. Pwalker1972 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

After talking to a friend, what is unsaid might be the problem. There are people that push political ideas and I have noticed from your edits that some push their theories. Just for the record, I am not one of them. Like many in Generation X, I could care less about both Democrats and Republicans. I am suggesting there might be a resolution on this being replace him with either a widely recognized icon of Generation X or an icon that just happens to be in Generation X. Though, to have both Clinton and W. Bush listed should be in the Baby Boomers, I will not push that either. But, some sort of relationship should be made between people from their generation should be used to help the reader relate to people such as Elvis, Warhol, and Buddy Holly being from the Silent Generation since it related to artist in the generation cycle. I would suggest keeping Cobain (popularly connected to X), Tarantino (popularly connected to X), and Woods (since he would be more of a wake up call to who is in the Generation being one of the most recognized athletes in the world this decade), and someone from the business sector that would be an entrepreneur (since that is related to the data that many in Generation X have became entrepreneurs than go into the corporate world). The Silent Generation need more in it and Generation X to keep a better context of the generations and a neutral tone speaking that the Generation X page is mostly a negative tone and should present "conflicting" points-of-view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwalker1972 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) sorry for forgetting to sign Pwalker1972 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the lists inherently are WP:BIASed, even with the best efforts to avoid it; and lists with each person having a separate reference for belonging to the generation may violate WP:SYN. Because of the disputes in the years of each generation, perhaps quoting a single reliable source for a list, and reporting the source in the article, might be the best approach. Now that a certain SPA has been blocked, I may have time to go through the other lists and tag them for the additional sourcing required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the lists. I am not (but not by far, just not) an expert on generations. But, I am concerned about tone and lack of information comparing the generations. My attempt to add a list to get more information out there would appear to be a bad idea, but just the amount of data and information on the generations from The Greatest Generation to Generation Y is lacking in two generations, X and Silent. I would suggest making a uniform template for headings for all of these so they can be compared an contrasted better for a start. After the foundation is laid, how the community builds on it can be debated overtime. I really do not want to be the one "adding" the information. Being a member of a generation (as we all are for at least one) would bias my assessment on Generation X though an insider does have valuable knowledge that others would not have, the adding of information is not for me. But as an insider and being educated in accounting and marketing, I see trouble for anyone connected to human resources (for example, but not by chance in my case) to use the data an information to make informed decisions. What do you think about a template? Or at least some sort of hybrid derived from Boom and Y? Pwalker1972 (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BTC Pipeline edit war

No, you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline and Global Guardian and other articles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Note that accuracy of the reverts is not a factor in counting them, unless the reverts are necessary to protect WP:BLP.

If you disagree with my contributions, you should respond to the talk page topics I have started that are still unanswered. So please stop policing every edit I make on multiple unrelated topics -- it comes across as bullying and bad-faith "shock troop" behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing it at Talk:BTC, and you still haven't supplied any sources.

Any use of 9/11 alternative theories other than as a link in a quote is WP:BIASed and restricted by the 9/11 arbcom ruling; the correct name is 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. What does the BTC pipeline have to do with Global Guardian besides the fact that I edited them?
2. "9/11 conspiracy theories" is a nasty, loaded, pejorative term that I won't be using. There is nothing "biased" about the word "alternative" or the phrase "alternative theory." To claim otherwise is to pervert the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Nothing. People adding inappropriate links to one family of articles may do so to another.
2. 9/11 alternative theories is not used in the real world, nor should it be in Wikipedia. The reason the redirect exists is because of move wars by a now-banned editor, IIRC. It barely avoids the speedy deletion criteria. If you don't want to use 9/11 conspiracy theories, fine; just don't refer to the concept, as that is its name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. You're insulting me and you're bullying. Behave decently.
2. "9/11 alternative theories" might not be used by the New York Times or Newsweek, but it certainly is used throughout the real world, often by polite free-thinkers engaged in earnest investigation. I will not be using "9/11 conspiracy theories," because I reject your edict that that 'is' its name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not insulting you. I'm making a general comment about inappropriate links. Perhaps you've never run across the Wikipedia guidelines for linking.
2. You may say whatever you want. However, 9/11 alternative theories has been ruled to be not acceptable, except in quasi-quotes, per one of the 9/11 ArbComm rulings. Your additions will be reverted, and repeated re-additions may lead to blocks. As I've reverted you, and am a generally involved admin in the 9/11 area, I won't block you. But you still may be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The 2000s edit

Probably not a good idea to declare something as 'vandalism' if it was merely a good-faith edit. Could lead to unnecessary edit warring. Rugz (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Romm

Please do not change the Lead to Joseph Romm without discussing it first on the talk page and forming a consensus. There has been extensive discussion about this already at the article. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear BLP violation. It's a controversial (although favorable) comment about a living person, not credited to a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everybody seems very close to WP:3RR here. Please do discuss it, seek further input from other editors; and have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. If necessary, pls do take the matter to reliable sources, or the biography boards. It really helps nobody to have an edit war. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the "scare quotes", although the subject's brother will probably remove it when he wakes up. And I'm only close to 3RR if you include reversion of clear vandalism and of BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

For helping clean-up vandalism to my page. -- Banjeboi 07:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Paltridge the Conspiracy Theorist

Hi Arthur, I noted this edit here and your edit summary. I'm a little confused, I may have missed something, but which statements of Paltridge's establish him unambiguously as a conspiracy theorist? I believe that editor Chjoaygame has made a relevant point about this on the talk page. If you look at the global warming conspiracy theory page you'll see the page itself admits that the label is pejorative. So the question is, how can we label a living person pejoratively as a "conspiracy theorist" unless we have a strong quote, e.g. Paltridge stating, "There is indeed a conspiracy of scientists out to defraud us all" or something of that sort? And even then, if he did say that, is Paltridge's personal conspiracy theory the same one described at the Wikipedia page? It might be worth noting that the WP:BLP has been recently updated to explicitly caution against the use of "see also". Alex Harvey (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He refers to others as conspiracy theorists, although not explicitly (in the direct quotes, anyway). The final sentence of the #Content section strongly suggests that he considers there to be a conspiracy to support action against global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get back to this in an hour or so. I may be able to come up with a better link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to this?

In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. "There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue."

Whilst I agree that Paltridge lets his rhetoric run away a bit here, this is not describing a "conspiracy" as such, certainly not an organised conspiracy, and it's not a "conspiracy theory" either, at least as the phrase is normally used. From conspiracy theory we have "Conspiracy theory ... has come almost exclusively to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities." That's not Paltridge's view, because there are no conspirators. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's too vague to put him in a category; a (shared) "hidden agenda" does not exactly amount to a conspiracy — or does it? The truth is out there. In any case, I won't add or remove the category until it's resolved to my satisfaction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question, and I don't really know the answer. It would be interesting to know if Paltridge himself agrees with the "conspiracy theorist" label (my bet is he doesn't simply because it has such negative connotations). What troubles me is that via use of the "see also" we, as Wikipedians, are labelling him a "conspiracy theorist" without any attempt at satisfying WP:V. And given that both the conspiracy theory page and the global warming conspiracy theory admit that "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative and negative and I just can't see how it can be appropriate in a BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Rubin, you are once again abusing your position as an admin, and I think you should ask another neutral admin to review your highly POV edits on this article and the 350 (organisation) article. Whoever gave you the broom made a grievous error. ► RATEL ◄ 05:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I haven't used any admin tools in this, other than possibly blocking someone who really vandalized the article by adding a #See also to a random article. I do believe that the attempts to link every article in wikipedia which has the number 350 in it to 350 (organization) is absurd, and the fact that it's a herd of anons with incomprehensible text and comments makes it more difficult to determine if any of the links should be placed, so I may have removed some which should be there. I doubt it, though; as it's controversial, for a person to be linked, both references to 350.org and some positive statement by that person is required. And you and the anon have created multiple BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Anyhow, FYI, I thought I'd just share here that in case you're ever doubtful about whether the labelling of Paltridge as a conspiracy theorist is appropriate or not, I've found a quote from Paltridge where he explicitly rejects the idea of conspiracy: "Conspiracy theorists would probably favour the idea that it was all planned 30 years ago by some small, shadowy, secret organisation bent on destruction of the world’s social order. Personally I would rather believe that, given the human addiction to tales of collective guilt, there is no need to invoke conspiracy as part of the explanation. The path to the final outcome was inevitable from the start." From here.

zero

Why did you remove the updates I made about zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they appeared not to be sourced to reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the article on:

Will Durant, 'The Story of Civilization', Volume 4, 'The Age of Faith', pp. 241.

on

http://www.archive.org/details/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs)

I have to accept your word that that's a reliable source, although his use of the never-accepted term "Hindu numerals" gives one pause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pleas search the phrase "keep the rows" on this text page:

http://www.archive.org/stream/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp_djvu.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I only edited it with respect to verbosity. So let's discuss your concern on the Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you like this change of just made to the lede of the 1st sentence: Conspiracy theory' literally means "a theory of a conspiracy."? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much. Perhaps later in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over, perhaps at the beginning of #Terminology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please WP:Refactor your characterization of my person. I believe you are aware of the requirements of WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot refactor my characterization and remain honest. I cannot come to a conclusion other than one of:

1. You are intentionally disruptive in assigning your claimed expertise in your research on the Protocols of Zion to articles and concepts which are not related.
2. You do not understand the real-world concept of conspiracy theory and that represented in the article New World Order (conspiracy theory)
3. You do not understand the concept we Wikipedians have chosen to describe in the article conspiracy theory
4. You do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If I said I was sure which of them you are, I'll refactor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply asking you that you remove all references to my conduct from the Talk page of Conspiracy theory. It's simply an Ad hominem argument at best. But also, I believe it violates the WP rules of WP:Assume good faith, as well as WP:No personal attacks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an ad hominem argument. The fact that you were blocked for disruption (intentional or not) previously suggests that additional disruption (intentional or not) should be dealt with quickly and firmly, for the good of Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You should first prove "disruption," after that you can bring up previous issues. But since you cannot prove a single rule violation, it is you who are being "disruptive" by bring up irrelevant previous issues. Admit the fact - you cannot prove a Single violation of any rule. So what you're doing is extremely disruptive on your part. Please stop Talking Writing about the Past on issues that have nothing to do with you. Just show me a Single violation - and I'll respond appropriately. But every time you just don't like an edit of mine, you say "disruption." Check out Wikipedia rules - that itself is a disruption by you. Please, please, stop for the good of Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want me to prove disruption, even though it would probably lead to your ban (stronger than a permanent block). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

John Todd (occultist) - any interest?

The article on John Todd (occultist) is at AfD right now. It'll almost certainly survive, don't worry. However, it looks like some people are signing up to help rescue the article, clean it up, find more reliable sources. As you've been involved in the Satanic Ritual Abuse article, would you have an interest in this John Todd article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop!

You may say anything you wish, truthfully about what you believe is improper, by WP rules.

But you have no right to engage in a WP:Personal attack on me concerning issues which have nothing to do with why a page should be Deleted,

or why you think a particular move on a particular page is wrong.

I urge you, please stop your personal attacks on me.

Stick to the exact way I violated some principle of Wikipedia.

Or just show me that a particular editor agrees with you on a particular move.

The instant that you show me that you have a Consensus, I will immediately do as that consensus requires.

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not as simple as you seem to believe, nor as complicated.

• It's simpler, as there had been a previous consensus against your changes in both articles, so you should have asked for comment before making the changes. You certainly should not have continued making changes after you were reverted until you understand why you were reverted or you get a consensus for your changes.
• It's more complicated, in that a 2-1 majority does not necessarily indicate a consensus. With your history of being blocked for violating consensus, you probably should stop unless there's a clear consensus for your actions, but 2-1 does not normally indicate a consensus.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick"

I strongly recommend that you read this Wikimedia article, and tell me what you think of it: [35] --Ludvikus (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect WP:TROLL may be better reading for you. Although, WP:RBI may also be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb case, desysopping

Rubin, I am about to file a case about you at Wikipedia:RFAR

I don't want to do it, since I am very busy, but your editing ill befits an admin. If you have something to say about the way you are editing without NPOV, I'm all ears. ► RATEL ◄ 06:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see anything I've done wrong, but you're welcome to file a case. If this is in regard 350 (organization), I haven't used any admin tools (other than rollback, which is sometimes considered an admin tool). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyclic permutation of integer

Just a quick note to say I agree with your proposal to AfD Cyclic permutation of integer. I was about to make the same suggestion, when I saw that you were ahead of me ! It is a badly structured stack of unsourced and mostly trivial arithmetic manipulations with a few references thrown in at the end to lend it credibility; the few parts worth keeping can be added to cyclic number, repeating decimal or parasitic number. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What vandalism? Please AGF and unblock user:snowdude1492

Why did you tag the edits that user:snowdude1492 made to Oxyhydrogen as vandalism? oxy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&diff=next&oldid=318717619 His last edit seems legit, with a citation to a legitimate reliable source. This was clearly an honest effort to improve the page, and not vandalism. Your tag resulted in an indefinite block to a new user, and an IP block to the entire campus of The Bentley School where I teach (snowdude1492 is one of my students).

If you have a problem with the quality of the content he added or even the source he used, go ahead and contest THAT, with an explanation in the summary tag, or on the talk page. But PLEASE, assume good faith. If you are an administrator with unblock authority, please unblock user:snowdude1492, and help remove the IP address unblock from our school. Thank you. Fredwerner (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly wrong, regardless of whether the source supports it. If the source supports it, it's not vandalism. (The IP block will end within 24 hours of the last attempt of the attempt to edit through the block. If you will certify that it's a school IP, I'll turn off the autoblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still clearly inappropriate; none of those sources, except the FTC source, are allowed even as external links, and the FTC source only supports that no official tests are done (not no official tests have been done.) But I'll unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

The productivity of the comment I left on that talk page was understood by the Admin I was aiming it at. Why so serious? - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Was it related to improving the article? If not, it shouldn't be there. If so, could you explain how? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I cannot explain humor to you, nor will I attempt it. Happy reverting!! Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject/New World Order/Neutral lede

• You just left a message on my Talk page. The issue above is Closed, so what do you want of me? Be specific, so I can comply if I agree with your concern. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue was closed, but your last posts indicate that you do not understand what was said — at least in the same way as I believe the WP:CONSENSUS interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps I should have opened a seperate section, but that might lead other readers of the thread to believe that I believed your last statements in the thread were accurate representations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm required to assume WP:Good faith. But your making it at all possible. Why don't stop generalizing and be specific. You're now only saying "you're bad." that's totally useless, and extremely "disruptive" to my work at Wikipedia. Just tell me exactly what it is you want from me - because I absolute have no idea - unless I assume "bad faith" on your part. I'm now disparately trying to maintain the vopposite. I can see some light at the end of the tunnel by your expression of doubt. But I still have no idea what you want of me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beckwith Company

I'm a much respected editor at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm an expert on this piece of garbage (the so-called "Warrant for Genocide"). In 1920 The Beckwith Company company was apparently explicitly created to publish this text when the reputable Boston house dropped the title. And - unfortunate as that is - "world domination" was put on the title page of this tract. The lead of the title of this hateful work is Praemonitus Praemunitus, which means, "Praemonitus praemunitus." So please be more careful when you revert my work. By the way, I just noticed that you're also one of the Administrators at Wikipedia. I therefore also ask you to be particular careful because of a possible conflict of interest. Thanks (Shalom). --Ludvikus (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see why that should be on the book's article, but not the publisher's article. Can you explain further? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can. The Anti-Semites who brought this Warrant for Genocide to the United States could no longer get a descent publisher to publish their "work" after the First American edition hit the streets. The American Jewish Committee worked hard to expose this phoney "document" through the legal means at their disposal. Louis Marshall was the head at the time. Therefore, an unincorporated entity was created as a cover for this kind of trash. This publishing "house" pretended that there was a man named "Beck," and published another work under "his" name. But it's really extremely important only due to the fact that it was like the sperm that turned into Adolf Hitler - my metaphor reminds me of the fact that Hitler's connection here is no accident - according to Norman Cohn. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS: If you need to know that I know about this hateful "literature" against the Jews, you might be informed by studying the template to the right. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think (as I now posted on the article's talk page, as this seems to be a more-or-less polite discussion on the content of the article), that the appropriate place to note the "World Domination" comment would be on an article on that edition, or on the editions in general and differences between them at Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions). (That article needs some clerical work, as the two United States sections should be combined, at the very least, as well as possible content errors.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Emergency: I'm working on it, and trying to understand you better. But I believe the article has just been Vandalized to support the Contents of the idea of The Protocols. So could you discuss this stuff there, and take the appropriate action? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism??

Why do you consider my posting of Bill Clinton vandalism? Aavwiki (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was US-centric WP:TRIVIA. See WP:NOT (This is about an edit to 42) Verbal chat 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The "In politics" Section was added to see if other nations would have some "42" related entries. As for trivia, I would say that it corresponds to the "In sports" "Jackie Robinson" entry.

Aavwiki (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Bush's really are known as "41" and "43" in some circles, but no one refers to Clinton as "42". I think none of the other Presidents are actually known by their number. And retired numbers are allowed in #... in sports sections; Jackie Robinson is more noted than most, as the project guidelines say that any number retired by a top-level professional team may be listed.

Also, all the other entries are (or should be) cardinal numbers, such as 42, rather than [[ordinal numbers (linguistic)|]s, such as 42nd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, nolo contendere.

Aavwiki (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At the unveiling of Bill Clinton's official portrait at the White House, George W. Bush (With Bush Sr. in attendance) mentioned that he and his father wimsicially refer to themselves as "43" and "41" respectively. He then went on to say "It's a great pleasure to honor number 42."

A transcript of the speech is available here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2004Jun14_2.html

Vbartilucci (talk) 12:21 21 October 2009(UTC)

MTV Generation

Hi,

As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.

Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.

Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Peregrine981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel and Paltridge

Arthur FYI it seems to me that Ratel is reinserting the same material into the Paltridge article about "luck". I am pretty sure that there was a firm consensus and agreement from yourself, Kevin, others that these were violations and he was asked to desist. Evidently, he doesn't think so and he's at it again... I don't know what to do here... should I just give in? See here. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Query about your relationship with User:CalendarWatcher

Dear Arthur,

There is concern about your rebuttal of the opinion of another editor at the 2012 talk page earlier this year, in which you invoked "the agreement of CalendarWatcher and myself"; yet there is no evidence of direct interaction between you and the CalendarWatcher account.

I wonder whether you are able to point to where this agreement with CalendarWatcher was developed. Tony (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no interaction that I can recall, except possibly on WT:YEARS. We each agreed (on different talk pages, if I recall) that the fiction sections of the 2012 articles cannot be separated; whether in 2012, or in a separate article, was left open. There were no arguments presented that they could be separated, that I can recall. For what it's worth, I believe the merge discussion(s) got lost at some point; perhaps some of the subpages of 2012 doomsday predictions (or whatever it's called, now) got lost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This testy exchange was only six months ago, and you have presented what appears to be an agreement between you an the CalendarWatcher account in no uncertain terms.

User:Jim62sch wrote: "Who in the world put that tag on? Anyway, the answer is no. Final answer."

Your response was "The section merge tag is based on (1) the status quo ante, and (2) the agreement of CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs) and myself. You are in no position to say "no",..."

It is quite specific: the agreement; not even an agreement. It would be odd indeed for "the agreement" to have been struck without a single direct interaction between you and the CalendarWatcher account. You seemed sure at the time, but your answer today appears vague. I note, too, that the CalendarWatcher account played no part in the correction of the tag and appears not to have been alerted to this section; nor did it of its own accord make a comment in this thread, which had cited its "agreement".

I am sorry to press this matter: it is of great importance that it be resolved. Can you point to what constituted "the agreement" that was used as such a forceful argument to rebut Jim62's objection—even if it was the unlikely scenario in which you and CalendarWatcher "agreed" with the notion of merging or the posting of the merge tag in this article, but without actually conferring? Tony (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can point me to the date I said that, I'll try to find the discussion(s) which supported that statement, but I'm afraid I would feel obligated to point out, in any formal (or as formal as Wikipedia gets), that Jim62 misunderstood (and later, misrepresented) the clear meaning of the merge tags, and so his interpretation of anything else is suspect.

I'm afraid further discussion might have to go to an RFC, as I would have to argue that Jim62 intentionally (in the legal sense — "knew or should have know") misrepresented the clear meaning of the merge tags — that only the fiction sections were to be merged, as the section attribute was on both merge tags, and in the discussion. I didn't want to bring the matter up, per AGF. but… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, that would be much appreciated. I must explain that the matter in question is your relationship with the CalendarWatcher account; Jim62sch plays only the bit part here. The link at the opening of this section (the target is not yet archived) points to a thread in April. Your quoted statement was on 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC). Tony (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rechecking all the threads I can find, the agreement here seems to be with Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs), rather than CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs), in Talk:2012#WTF (or: Doomsday-related material). I probably interacted with CW on Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the Year, and possibly other Wikipedia:WikiProject Time subprojects and tasks, but I can't find any direct interaction in 2009. (Some talk threads did get lost in the multiple moves and autoarchiving of the article now named 2012 phenomenon, which is a likely place for this discussion to have taken place.) I'm pretty sure that CW and I have both been enforcing similar interpretations of the more restrictive notability requirements for entries in the year and day-of-year articles, but I don't recall interacting directly with him/her.

Talk:2012 as of the end of April seems to confirm that interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I'm afraid I don't understand the issues involved nor why I'm supposed to be involved. I also must say that I'm not happy with the not-well-concealed implication on my talk page that I'm some sort of sock puppet. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason you seem to be involved seems to be (based on the logs from 6 months ago) that I used your name when the correct editor name was Cosmic Latte. Perhaps the implication is that I knew the two of you were the same. In any case, I don't understand the issues involved or why it would be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

External link

Why do you consider this edit inappropriate? That site is useful. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The site is useful, but I can't find credentials for the author/editor, and the link would need to indicate which entry the link is for. Credentials may not be necessary for an EL, but we would still need to indicate which entry (or entries) are referenced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Which entry the link is for seems obvious: regression. That's what it says. I don't see how there could be confusion about that. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I am trying to understand why you removed the edits on the quackwatch page? The entire article is a commercial for one man who has made his living as a front for the AMA, promoting their agenda, which was found to be illegal in Wilk et al v AMA et al, long ago. But he claims this is not true on his website. In 2005, under cross examination in a California Court he gave testimony admitting that he WAS connected with the AMA; that he was not a Psychiatrist (as he had failed the Board exam) and that he had been running around the country suing about 40 parties and lost ALL suits.

In the interest of balance, isn't it fair reporting to show the negative side of someone who has disrupted so many lives and for whom it is res judicata that he is not what he claims? Drsjpdc (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of balance, isn't it fair reporting to show that his comments are generally accepted by the scientific community, even if not by the alt-med community. It's not true that "he has made his living as front for the AMA", although the AMA's actions were found illegal (as an anti-trust violation, rather than as actual fraud) in Wilk v. AMA. The incorrect case you quote as his not being a psychiatrist is false; it's still not a requirement that a psychiatrist pass the board exam in order for him to practice or claim to be a psychiatrist; and he has not lost all suits; at least two were settled, he claims they were in his favor, and the other parties do not disagree.

As for the the fact that he is not a board certified psychiatrist, that should be irrelevant as to the question of whether he is an expert psychiatrist. The judge committed clear error if that was the basis for his opinion. If it was not the basis of (the judge's) opinion, as reported by a third party, it should not be in his article.

Finally, all of this should be in his article, if at all legitimate, rather than in Quackwatch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific BLP ruling was that the statement that he was not a board-certified psychiatrist needed (under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE) to also include the statement that only 33% of practicing psychiatrists were board-certified at the time he failed the exam, and he had retired as a practicing psychiatrist. With all those caveats, it was decided to be inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, that is very interesting. And, i appreciate the clarification. I shall be more vigilant in the future, especially in relation to this source of information. Regardless, however there IS a great deal of controversy about this Barrett, who is a self appointed slanderer of all things not "orthodox" medicine. He HAS been sued several times, and I understand that some of those were successful and recently he was Ordered to pay a rather large sum of damages. All I want is a fair and balanced reportage. Can you help? Drsjpdc (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Drsjpdc, it should also be noted that the author of your source is not a trustworthy source of information. He has been indefinitely banned here by the Arbitration Committee and his attempts to spread his libelous war against Barrett to Wikipedia has been a failure because of his deceptiveness and his unreliable accusations. He has admitted under sworn deposition that some of his major libels are "euphemisms". The problem is that he states them as fact and his readers believe it. I understand why you, as a chiropractor, might not like Barrett, but don't use that attitude here. It's unhelpful and unwikipedian. Such attempts will only detract from your reputation as an editor and as a chiropractor. You will need all the friends you can get here, and if you adhere to our editing guidelines and edit collaboratively, we are prepared to support you.

BTW, I suggest you place a NOINDEX code on the top of all subpages here that function as commercials for yourself. Google is listing them. Wikipedia isn't a personal website. Here is the code -- {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}} -- and here are the pages to place it on: User:Drsjpdc/Stephen_J._Press & User:Drsjpdc/Stephen_J._Press2 & User:Aditya/Stephen_J_Press. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullrangifer, Thanks for the heads up... I didn't realize that was happening. I will place the -- {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}} -- on the pages I was constructing, especially as I understand that my doing an autobiography on WIKI is a nono. I really had no idea that Adithya was working on a page with my bio... presumably on the idea that if a World Governing Body in Sport I founded is "notable", then perhaps, so am I. I think it would be presumptuous for me to interfere in HIS project in any way, there were enough issues with my initially creating that page as a newbie. Drsjpdc (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I quite agree that Barrett is controversial. But most of the controversy doesn't relate to QW, and, per WP:BLP, any controversial statemsnts about Barrett must come from a reliable, secondary source. Parties involved in a lawsuit with Barrett cannot be used, even if they would normally be considered reliable as experts per WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Prime Numbers

1. (cur) (prev) 17:10, 13 October 2009 Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (61,315 bytes) (Undid revision 319643708 by Tarantulae (talk) GBL doesn't seem notable) (undo)

1. (cur) (prev) 16:18, 13 October 2009 Tarantulae (talk | contribs) m (61,435 bytes) (Added link to a demonstration of the GBL in Primes) (undo)

Can you define what is "notable" to you ? There is almost nothing new with prime numbers for centuries and you remove a little contribution ?

Please, exemplify what kind of things can be notable or not in prime numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarantulae (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Benford's Law (although I actually don't recall seeing under that name) is somewhat notable. The GBL as stated follows immediately (as an approximate statement) from the prime number theorem and appropriate integration or summation methods. Possibly, some of the other external links are prime number trivia, and should be removed also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the link to Benford's law is tenuous, but I tend to err on the side of including too much than too little. --TMC1221 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The period of reciprocal of prime and group theory

The period of reciprocal of prime and group theory are related and the relationship is revealed by a simple rationale below:

When the reciprocal of a prime is converted to decimal, the successive remainders in a long division are necessary to be less than p. Since there could be not more than (p - 1) remainders, thus the maximum order, which represents the period, is (p - 1). In group theory, if (Zp, *) represents multiplicative group of integers modulo p, then a cyclic subgroup S is generated by 10. The order of subgroup, which represents the period of the repeating decimal, shall divide the order of the group, which is (p - 1). Now, does group theory gives an answer?

--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

True (marginally). Monoid theory is probably closer. But "subgroups" is still wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I can not understand why you deleted writing ", and group theory". --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That may have been a mistake; I'm still looking for a Wikipedia article on the concept I know as monoid theory. If I can find it, that is the appropriate link, rather than group theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MTV Generation‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Law Lord (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Reversion of my edit

What do you mean by this: "Reverted to revision 319901932 by Ludvikus; remove timing of Protocols of Zion AGAIN; as no dates appear in this section, there's no need." I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain - and on the article's Talk page. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already been explained; the publication history of The Protocols of Zion have nothing to do with related conspiracy theories much later than we can all agree that it reached Western eyes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing without thinking

Would you please try to correct your habit of labelling actions "vandalism" and reverting before carefully considering what you are doing. You've done that to me TWICE and then reversed yourself after actually considering what you've done. "vandalism" Oops, not vandalism more "vandalism" Oops, once again, I'm half asleep ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of your edits are unjustified, although not necessarily vandalism. (I'm not saying they're not vandalism, either, at this time.) I actually believe the first edit in question (adding ... Conspiracy Theory) was intended as being disruptive, even though I can see a justification for it (now apparently opposed by consensus). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So adding the appropriate See also was both justified yet also disruptive? Sweet Jeebus, I could say something rude to you, but I know you'd simply use your extra buttons to take revenge. ► RATEL ◄ 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Halting problem

I noticed you appear to be engaged in an editing dispute on Halting problem. I see too that you and the other editor have discussed this on the talk page, but apparently not come to a consensus. It would be helpful if you could discuss the issue with the other editor before reverting eachother anymore, since you both have apparently done so twice in a short amount of time. Shadowjams (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful. He's brought up the issue before (possibly more than once), and he is the only editor who has stated that his approach is better. Perhaps we could go to WP:3O if we can work from the stable version without quining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might work. What about the Mathematics Portal/Project page? Obviously on technical topics the audience will be smaller, but there are probably enough eyes on the Math project. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not intimidate

I am under no restrictions, I have not violated 3RR, and we are not yet in an edit war (I hope it doesn't happen). Stop posting nonsense to my talk page. I know your position, and I hope to get third opinions to resolve this dispute.Likebox (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You will have violated 3RR if you revert my third revert. You replaced "input" by "quining" before in 2008, so one could make a good case that your first edit today was a revert. In any case, I've reinstated your lead, but with a "disputed" tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the expert

Arthur, you are the expert everywhere. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between facilities and the built environment

Facilities which include, for example, factories, offices, schools, hospitals, roads, railway and other infrastructure are the built environment. Education in the field of facility/facilities management is normally found within university faculties/schools of the built environment. Those who work in facilities, such as facility managers, and others would consider that they are concerned with the built environment. Brianatkin (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of my out-of-process move

Hi Mr. Rubin: So I see you caught my out-of-process move. I just couldn't figure out that deletion review and didn't think anyone would notice. Can you put the article about Endgame into the deletion review process? I'd like to see what happens, the arguments, and so on. I have several opinions on the matter and would like to see what other Wikipedians are going to say. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the deleting administrator, as the first step of WP:DRV. Please see User talk:Tom harrison#End Game (2007 film) informal review, and watch that space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi: would it be possible to do the DRV then? Varks Spira (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. How's it going? Endgame seems to be having a particularly difficult time keeping itself alive around here. Where did it go and how can it make its way over to DRV? Does it need to be moved somewhere? Varks Spira (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Started now; sorry about the delay. Please give reasons why it doesn't meet WP:CSD#G11 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 17#Endgame (2007 film), following the normal talk page conventions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I responded on the deletion page. Varks Spira (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Free energy suppression

I noticed you remove this link: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression under reasons of being inapproriate? how could this be not approriate? Seb-Gibbs (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO points 2 and 12. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

350

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 350 (organisation), you will be blocked from editing. ► RATEL ◄ 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 350 (organisation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Large removals of data without discussion ► RATEL ◄ 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of large amounts of trivia, with explainations why it's removed in edit summaries and on the talk page, is not vandalism nor necessarily inappropriate. I acknowledge the 3RR problem, but you are probably closer to 3RR than I am at this point, if you haven't gone over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Super-root

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super-root. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Robo37 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tetration

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tetration. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Robo37 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked. You still have one more revert than I do. However, thanks for the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Relating applying a force to watts

Arthur, I know you have an exceedingly math-oriented mind. Please see a thread here on the talk page of Jc3s5h. Can you answer the question? I think it is inescapable that power must be expended (given a theoretically 100% efficient machine) to elevate one kilogram and float it above the ground. The question is not whether “work” is being performed (the kilogram isn’t being raised higher above the ground); the question is “how much power must be expended in the effort to simply counter gravity once one pulls the table out from under the kilogram mass?” My instinct is that it takes 9.80665 watts (using a 100% efficient electromechanical coil) to counter one standard gravity (9.80665 m/s²), which makes a downward weight of 9.80665 newtons, and by expending 9.80665 watts, one can generate an equal countering force to make the kilogram hover.

I know it requires some amount of power to elevate the kilogram; it clearly isn’t going to float on its own. But the algebra just isn’t working out at all for me (you can see that on the above-linked page) for me to confirm how much power is truly required. Of course, I could keep it hovering over the ground with a 20%-efficient remote-controlled toy helicopter. I have no doubt too, that I can keep it floated using a superconducting solenoid with electrical power running through it. Essentially, it would be a railgun, where, if it were sideways, it would shoot the “projectile” horizontally. Instead, it is aimed upwards, where we now have a Watt balance. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Another hunch: I suspect that the SI unit of measure for impulse, the newton-second, might be able to make the algebra work here. Suppose we say that we use 1 N·s of impulse (which is the measure of rocket-motor performance) per second in order to levitate a one kilogram mass in a gravitational field one 1 m/s². Since 1 N·s = 1 kg·m/s (which is per the Newton-second article), then 1 N·s/s = 1 N = 1 kg·m/s² (which is per the Newton article). I don’t have it all here, but is there enough here for you to algebraically tie it all together now? Would a 100% efficient, superconducting watt balance be using 9.80665 watts to hover the weight of one kilogram under one standard gravity by imparting an impulse into the kilogram of 9.80665 newton-seconds per second (9.80665 N)?

I suspect we can solve this by calculating the momentum not imparted into the kilogram over the course of a first second by not allowing it to free-fall. Yes? By imparting 9.80665 newton-seconds of impulse for one second, we prevented 9.80665 kg·m/s of momentum to develop. Moreover, we did so over one second (9.80665 kg·m/s²). I still can’t quite get to the watt. But I hope this helped. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. In any case, the energy or work required to raise a 1 kg mass one meter can be determined by the potential energy added in the lift. The force certainly can be infinitessimally more than the force required to get it to hover, but may be less. I'm thinking about gravitational transfer orbits in which less energy is required by the spacecraft than is apparently needed, as momentum is transferred from passing planets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I contacted a Ph.D. physicist at a major university here and am awaiting an answer.

My thought experiment is that if one takes a 1-kilogram rocket with a thrust of 9.8 newtons, and put it into space, its on-board accelerometer will read one gee with the engine running and zero gee with the engine off. The chemical energy from the fuel going into the rocket engine provides impulse (N•s), which adds momentum (N•s) and kinetic energy (J) as rocket fuel (W) is consumed. Now…

If one takes this same rocket and put it on a launch pad, light the engine, and pull the rug out from under it, the on-board accelerometer will still read one gee. (Of course, it would read one gee with the engine off, but rigid scaffolding like bridges clearly don’t require a fill-up of fuel to support things so this is beside the point. Besides, it’s easy enough to make the accelerometer read zero near earth: just drop it; which is to say, allow it to float in warped time-space.) Einstein wrote that inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration are not only indistinguishable, they are absolutely identical in all respects; even down to the way a light beam bends.

Let’s compare the two outcomes: In space, the rocket gains kinetic energy and momentum as the impulse of thrust does its magic. On earth these newtonian phenomenon (“work”, “momentum”, etc.) remain unchanged while the rocket fires. Yet, in both circumstances (zero gee or earth’s surface), rocket fuel is being expended at a known rate (liters per second) and that means chemical power (watts) is being expended. Now, power is power (chemical, mechanical, electrical). The difference between the two outcomes (space and earth’s surface) as far as added kinetic energy lies, I think, in whether one looks at the physics from a fixed-frame, newtonian point of view or looks at it from the point of view of Einstein (where the rocket accelerates through time-space regardless if it is in a “zero gee” frame of reference or an “earth’s surface” frame of reference where time-space is warped.

This, at least, is my hypothesis and my thought experiment. All the algebraic derivatives I can come up with don’t support this hypothesis because I can’t make them match the classic SI definition of the watt or any of its derivatives. The Ph.D. researcher at the NIST who is working on the watt balance e-mailed me that he considers the power in the watt balance to be “virtual” power. Hmmm. Yet the NIST press release refers to how the watt balance compares mechanical power to electrical power. I don’t know; perhaps I’m full of crap. Greg L (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Arthur,

Thank you so much for the important work you've been doing to make 10:10 an encyclopedia-standard article. You make a real difference, especially given that there are only a few people who have added to the article so far.

Just to clear something up - are we both of the same opinion that figures reported as fact in a national newspaper can be reported as fact in Wikipedia (when referenced)? Note this is entirely and absolutely distinct from figures claimed by a non-reliable independent campaign website.

Also, I am sorry my recent edit wasn't up to scratch - I will spend a few minutes now replacing the changes I made which are unrelated to the number of signatories, assuming that this is something you are happy with.

I hope that this suits you. Many thanks, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Arthur,

I really don't want to move too fast, and I am happy for you to replace the numbers of signatories with the old Guardian article, however, I have seen today's Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/18/1010-liberal-democrats-commons-motion

I think at the moment, that this serves as a reliable, third-party published source of the number of signatories. I will put this provisionally into the article. I truly hope you don't see this as moving too fast.

Best wishes, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That one looks somewhat questionable, in fact. Please note the following paragraph:

• The campaign, which is supported by the Guardian, asks businesses, organisations and individuals to pledge to cut their carbon emissions and thereby place pressure on the government to commit the country to similar action. Since it was launched last month, more than 35,000 people, 1,200 businesses and 850 schools and organisations have joined.

Because of the support, it seems we need an independent source for the supporter count. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Arthur,

This is important, and your pointing this out is highly valuable. I think it's vital that we do assess all of our sources for exactly this sort of potential conflict of interest. That said, I'm not absolutely sure about this word "support". The Guardian has signed up to the campaign, and publishes articles about it, but it has no say in the management or organisation of the campaign; its articles are also subject to an editorial code assuring the intention of accuracy. It is a mainstream British newspaper. Could it still report a figure which is untrue? Might there be a meaningful conflict of interest within a newspaper which supports, but is independent from, a political campaign?

Thank you so much for your speedy reply!! Many thanks, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they'd encourage reporters to lie; but they might encourage reporters to trust affiliated organisations. Furthermore, some of the sourced phrases have no place in a real news (or encyclopedia) article. These include:

1. "major and diverse public figures and organisations"
2. "Dozens of high-profile individuals"
3. "consist of large variety of groups"

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the three quotes you have brought to light, and I apologise if I have written them. Thank you, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very grateful that you've posted on the Discussion page of the article - that's a perfect place to get this sorted. Hope to see you there! All the best, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Inflation

Hi, Just a head ups. I've just reverted the lead of inflation to the more neutrally worded version from a few weeks back before PennySeven started going to work on it. I'm guessing that you would agree with me on this? Leave me a message. Thanks, regards LK (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I never liked the word "eroded", even if properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Better than 'destroyed' I think. 'Reduced' would be an even more neutral term, but 'eroded' has been there for some time, so that's what I reverted to. Please leave a yay or nay on the talk page, as Pennyseven is accusing me of being the only one who found his recent additions problematic. Thanks, LK (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

nafeez mosaddeq ahmed entry

Hi there

have tried to correct and update the wiki entry, to no avail! - thanks for your conscientious approach to this, and apologies in advance for this lengthy intervention. i am actually the person whom the wiki entry is supposed to be about and have tried to edit it appropriately. would be grateful for your assistance on how to do this properly. i'm also a little confused about the standards you're using on the acceptability of the sources and want to know how to proceed. may i just emphasise that this is the first time i'm trying to address this wiki entry, as i've recently found that people have been using it for my bio info even in my professional life, which is rather annoying as it's outdated and slightly inaccurate. i've just found that the wiki entry comes up quite high up in google searches on my name, which explains why people are relying on it for info about me - hence my interest in trying to get it up to scratch.

firstly, the current entry says that i teach IR at Sussex. this is no longer true. my main position is as director of a think-tank, the IPRD. i did include a source for that in the entry (perhaps in the wrong place?) - which is the link to my bio on the IPRD website; not sure how a better source for that could be produced?

i've also finished doctoral research - the reversion to the old version which says i am currently teaching at sussex and doing doctoral research is therefore false, yet you insist on keeping this! i've also included my academic profile from sussex uni which clarifies this. those changes seem to me to be pretty important as far as accuracy is concerned.

more broadly, the characterisation of areas of expertise and my doctoral research are oversimplistic, which is why i tried to correct them but as briefly as possible. you've reverted those changes too, and i'd like to emphasise that the old version isn't accurate.

i tried to identify myself as a bestselling author in the opening and linked to the amazon.com page for my book, where it specifies the same - you've said that the "actual book should be used", but i'm not sure what you mean? i understand if you think adding bestselling here is inappropriate and a form of self-advertising! however, it's factually true and i feel it's a significant description of what i am and do - i've found the link to my publisher here http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=984 - would that be more appropriate?

in terms of the other sources used, i see someone's already put a link directly to the US National Archives website where my first book is listed as part of the 9/11 Commission special collection - this is a strong source. on the mention of my having testified in congress, i cannot find many online sources you might consider to be acceptable - except perhaps this link http://www.911truth.org/downloads/McKinney-911Commission-OneYearLater.pdf. unfortunately this is the only website i've found which has put the transcript of the hearing online, but at least the transcript is there containing my testimony too for verification. there's also no specific online source saying that my submissions were entered into the congressional record - although true, we could probably just remove that particular sentence rather than keeping it with a 'citation needed' note.

i also added a few more bits of media work that i've done. for that you've said that a citation is needed and i added a link to one of my profiles on the IPRD and/or Sussex University. how can either of those links be unacceptable as sources for information about me!? surely the best source for info about a person is the orgs where they have or are currently working? i also added links to those profiles in the external links, and can't see a valid reason for removing them, as they actually link to more accurate and updated info about me, including a full bibliography of my written works (at the sussex website).

i hope this clarifies the edits - i'm sorry if i haven't understood something here, or have failed to adhere to wikipedia standards, but after reading around some of the rules about editing content it seems to me that at least some of my edits should be kept, and i'd be grateful if we could come to work toward making my entry more accurate.

if we can't make it accurate, then i'd prefer the entire page to be deleted.

thanks in advance for your attention!

--94.195.202.217 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Nafeez

WP:AUTO and WP:COI suggest you should not be editing your own article, but I can see your frustration. On the other hand, some "Truthers" seem to have little regard for the truth even in regard other "truthers", so we have to be careful.

As for the specific points you brought up:

• "Best-selling" requires a source which specifically says you are a best-selling author; reference to actual sales figures is not adequate.
• The IPRD site should be adequate to source your working there. I think the main site should be in the External Links, and your bio should be a reference supporting the statement of your position there in the lede.
• The actual {{cite book}} template should be used rather than a link to amazon, although the publisher's entry on the book might be a useful URL. It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the {{cite book}} template, so perhaps it should be left out.
• The characterization of your areas of expertise and doctoral research probably should be removed, rather than supplied by you, per WP:COI. If you add a {{disputed-inline}} tag at that point, I'll see what I can do.
• I don't have a good feeling about http://www.911truth.org/ as a reliable source, even for copies of official documents. The table of contents doesn't look official to me, even if the testimony is, so that seems a bit more questionable than most. As for the Congressional Record, it should be possible to find an actual volume and page, even if it's not available online.

  However, I'm not sure appearing in the Congressional Record is notable. Some tax protesters (note, this is not people who protest taxes; these are people who deny the legality of taxes) refer to a speech made by a Representative which was put into the Record without actually having any existence other than being added by that Representative to the record; there's no evidence that anyone else saw or heard it before or since (other than from the Record). It's quoted as evidence that Congress doubted the validity of the United States income tax.

• Media that you've done could be added in the #Works section, but probably should not be added (at least by you) in the body.

and

• I'm not sure some of the references in the main text are to reliable sources, even so. If you can replace [URL] with <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> or other appropriate templates, that would be appreciated, even from the subject of the article. Such changes would make it easier to see which sources are published, which are allowable because they're written by you, and which are totally unsuitable for the article.

As for where I sit, I think your work is, shall we say, bovine excrement, but I'm willing to help you get a fair article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur: LOL. Thanks for the responses and clarifications. I won't get a chance now to edit the entry until around mid-November, and will try my best to stick to the rules you've outlined when i do get time to try my hand - thanks for bearing with me! I understand the caveats about me myself editing some of these points on wikipedia and will make sure to respect the boundaries.

BTW, your characterisation of the entirety of "my work" as BS is perhaps slightly more revealing of your own lack of familiarity with it (I mean, what exactly are you talking about, my work on al-Qaeda, Iraq, IR theory, globalization, genocide studies, Marxism, Islamism, etc. etc.? I can't believe you've read all my published work and hate all of it, which would make you some sort of masochistic stalker!) My sense is that you've gathered some generic impression of "my work" from so-called 9/11 "truthers", particularly as at the beginning of your comments you refer to "truthers" as if this has some relevance to me. I don't consider myself a "9/11 truther" and have serious reservations about the so-called 9/11 "truth movement", even if people in this movement have used my work (some of my work is also recommended by people who think this "truth movement" is little more than a cult - such as www.911cultwatch.org.uk) That's another reason why this wiki entry annoys me, as I remember one of the older versions actually had me listed as a member of the 9/11 "truth movement" and proceeded to misrepresent my actual arguments. Anyway, I genuinely appreciate your evenhandedness and willingness to help despite your negative perceptions of "my work." --94.195.202.217 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Nafeez

My apologies about referring to you as a "truther". I believe I started watching your article because of truther or anti-truther vandalism. (I honestly can't remeber which. We really did have an editor who added many "truthers" to the "terrorist" category.) It should be noted that another person "falsely" categorized as a truther contacted me off-wiki and sent me a videotape of an interview, but there I was attempting to remove both truther and anti-truther propaganda from his article. (He's clearly associated with 9/11, and has (according to him) been misquoted as one of the "explosion" people.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

About Ludvikus

If you start the process of trying to get User:Ludvikus banned from Wikipedia, I will support you 100%. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-US}}

Thanks a million for the above. That I didn't know - and now have learned of it from you. What bizarre thing happened at Berne, regarding Copyrights - do we have an article on that? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't at Berne, it was the US response to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. There was a transition period of about 15 years in which no copyrights ended, and some copyrights were extended beyond both the periods that would have been in effect both before and after the final decision. But, apparently, the transition started in 1979, and the copyright of something published in 1920 would have expired by 1976 (even if there were a copyright notice), so you're safe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

why

i don't understand why the yellow box in the discussion page says to read the insturcitions if youy want to delte it. it doesn't say to do so for restoring it. so others should read that box! —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a delete. It may be the case that a case could be made for restoration, but it hasn't been made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The yellow box says

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination:

The yellow box does not say

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussion if you are considering recreating it:

Since that discussion was well over a year ago, when President Obama was a 2nd place candidate, we should reconsider having the First Daughter featured. Besides, many articles have been written about her and excluding the President.

Maybe you should put back the page and then ask for a new deletion debate. Otherwise, it can never be recreated, even if Malia becomes a Congresswoman then later President. The deletion debate did not set a criteria. Some people said "later" or "later" when she is First Daughter. She has been first daughter for closer to 1 year than 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs)

Nope. WP:DRV or bringing up the matter on the redirect's talk page is more appropriate than summarily overturning the delete result. But I don't think she's notable yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah, you should be blocked if i am. didn't you read my comment about putting this up for AfD if you want to stealth delete via redirect? Please let's discuss on talk page. I ask that you reinstate page while discussion ensues. --Milowent (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blah. I did read your comment and the identical one from User:October 22 2009. It doesn't apply. The page should remain deleted until some evidence is provided that consensus has changed. The actual "notablility" has not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AR, when was the last AfD on this one. Only in May 2008? --Milowent (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So? There's no evidence the consensus has changed. WP:DRV seems the proper domain to determine whether new evidence (not yet added by the dated editor) supports notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

re: moving my comment. No worries -- glad to have it at the right spot. cheers, --guyzero | talk 09:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm

Thanks for the explanation on Global Campaign for Climate Action. I didn't realize that the category was referring to a specific organization. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I am separately nominating the specific organization clusters for upmerge to Category:Action on climate change (which is still misnamed, but better than nothing). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate change spammer

I've seen this person's edits while patrolling recent changes in the category namespace, and your many reverts. For what it's worth, I agree with all of your reversions, both to the categories and articles. It's unfortunate there's no way to block him/her but they seem to edit so many different pages from so many IPs. • Anakin ^(talk) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Labelling good-faith edits as "vandalism"

I shouldn't have to remind an administrator this, but please don't label good-faith contributions as vandalism, as you did when mass-reverting 99.155.156.1. This is made clear in WP:VAND and WP:CIVIL and I see you have been notified several times above. And this response to a legitimate suggestion was appalling. Totally unbecoming of an administrator. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As can easily be seen, it's the same person, although a different IP, who has made the suggestion before. WP:AGF only goes so far. It has been informed that tangentially related articles and categories should not be included, especially those related better through another article or category which is already included. Most of the changes from the latest incarnation of the IP were plausible, although the multiplicity of recently-created-categories produces some overlap. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All right. Sorry if I over-reacted. A brief message on the IP's talk page or even a simple edit summary could have made the history clear to others. It might make more sense to simply revert such talk page additions, rather than leaving other editors wondering why the terse response.

You might be interested in this mass rollback script, which facilitates quick reversion of all an IP's edits. I don't think it allows an edit summary though, so you'd need to leave a talk page message. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (Robertson)

Pat Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order was on the New York Times Best Seller list: BEST SELLERS: November 10, 1991 - The New York Times. Doesn't that mean it was a best-selling book? --Loremaster (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Loremaster. And good find too. Thanks to you, I can now read the Review listing. So Arthur, do you still think Pat's book is no-notable? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes it 5th in nonfiction that week, although the html needs some more work. Oddly enough, WP:NB doesn't mention "bestseller lists", but it's certainly enough to remove the {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

tag restoration

The tag you restored states that the list is a biography. As it isn't one the tag doesn't belong. In any case it is poor practice to add or remove something controversial without weighing in on the discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The tag should read that the list contains biographical material. Perhaps a customization of the tag would be needed, but that might be considered "piling on", as it's likely that even the people who agree that it should be there wouldn't agree on the customization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The tag is for BLPs. This isn't one. In any case, removal or addition without trying to discuss is the wrong thing to do, which I assume you know. WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm active in the discussion, as well, and {{BLP dispute}} is for articles containing statements about living persons, not just articles about living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One could argue, in addition, since statements about living persons are to remain out of articles unless there is consensus that they don't violate WP:BLP, that the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it doesn't apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem with you, Arthur, here: A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Please adhere to the policy regarding Tags. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem. You've misinterpreted WP:CONSENSUS so badly that your opinions on the issue as it applies to tags is <redacted>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm again

Hi. Romm did indeed write the article that was linked to today, which link you deleted. However, I agree with you that we should not generally add ELs linking to Romm's articles on the blog. He posts several new articles to his blog every day. Also, as you'll see on the talk page, I replied to this anon editor: Romm fully supports McKibben. Their only disagreement is regarding the exact number that is achievable, and as to that, Romm says only that the facts are not yet certain. But he has been praising the goals and methods of McKibben's organization and McKibben himself. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Domhoff on conspiracy theories

Arthur, I misunderstood what you said during the debate we were having in the Domhoff on conspiracy theories section of the [[Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)]] page. Here is what I meant to say: I'm not opposed to adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the Lead section but, as you can see from discussions in Archive 3, it was a major dispute that drove the Domhoff quote from the Lead section to the Alleged conspirators section. Do we really want to open that can of worms again? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks please.

No personal attacks please.

Meneer Burger (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Helping me

• Hey, I posted a reply on my user talk page. Could you also explain on my user page what the last sentence of your comment means? Thanks! FFLaguna (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I remade the edit on the Ban Ki-moon page, and it worked fine this time. I don't know how the URLs got screwed up. In any case, please swing by and explain what you meant by your last sentence on my user talk page. Thanks! :) FFLaguna (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

350.org RfC

Hope you'll participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonHoaxBat (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything's Cool (film)

I found enough mainstream press to show notability, I think. Why oh why can't article creators do that? Fences&Windows 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr on 350.org

Reported. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editing of the New World Order conspiracy theory article

Due to problems with my home computer, I may often edit the article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48 so please do not automatically assume these anyonymous edits are not constructive and revert them. Thank you for your understanding. --Loremaster (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Garth Paltridge

Hi Arthur, what are your thoughts on what we do over at Garth Paltridge? As you've just asked, has anyone provided an argument for why a single line in Hamilton has weight sufficient to mention that Paltridge has spoken sometimes at conferences organised by Lavoisier. The answer, of course, is that no one has, and no one is going to (unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat with a new source we don't know about). What do we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Roman a clef & faction

Hi. Please don't identify edits that you disagree with as "vandalism." The pages for "Faction" and "roman a clef" were changed because they identify the same literary device and the roman a clef page was more developed than the faction page. Please visit the following web page. http://wordsmith.org/words/roman_a_clef.html In the future, if you have a problem with edits that someone is trying to make to improve entries on Wikipedia, go to the discussion pages for the relevant articles and state your case. Labelling this as vandalism when it clearly is not is in and of itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be vandalism, but it is mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article on faction refers to it retrospectively as applying to historical novels, while the other one is as applied to current novels. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "vandalism"

Hi,

You used Twinkle to revert an edit on Inflation and labeled it as vandalism. However, the edit was clearly not vandalism. It's an ongoing content dispute. Regardless of whether there is consensus (however one defines that) or not, calling edits like that "vandalism" accomplishes nothing other than to inflame the situation and insult the person making the edit. I urge you to show more restraint in future edit summaries and keep the tone of the discussion more civil. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to disagree; an edit made against a clear consensus needs to be called something. Perhaps I can reconfigure Twinkle to just say "reverting clearly unjustified edit" without my having to explain further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to use an edit summary like we encourage everyone else to, then perhaps you shouldn't be making the edit. But what you're doing is worse than not using an edit summary, you're using the edit summary to actually negatively influence the tone of the discussion. The problem with calling "an edit made against a clear consensus" "vandalism" is that interpreting the first part is subjective, but in almost all accounts does not rise to vandalism. In fact, we even have a policy page that explains this. kmccoy (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My turn

I entirely agree with kmccoy above in your rather indiscriminate and intimidatory use of the term 'Vandalism'. I would point out the guideline states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Whilst I may agree with you in principle as to whether a given edit was appropriate or not according to our many policies and guidelines, it is clear that at least some of the instances are NOT vandalism. In the absence of a proper explanation from you, I would have to conclude indicate edits that you simply disagree with an edit by another editor. You, as an admin, should know this manner of editing is highly intimidating, and may deter contributions from new editors.

Concrete examples of your inappropriate edit summaries:

• You correctly removed linkspam with this edit. There's a lot of that going on in that article (and I see you already removed some before), but it's hardly vandalism. If you can use a proper edit summary before, there is no reason you cannot use it properly again as you appear to know the difference between the two.
• You arguably removed original research in a biography with this edit, but I would once again contest the validity of the 'Vandalism' label you used.
• It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits by a novice editor. As far as I can tell, this edit of yours signals a content dispute. You should have had the courtesy of making an entry to the relevant talk page.
• It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits at 4th Century. Again, there are no talk page messages anywhere. Thus, as far as I can tell, this is a content dispute.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

2001-2010

2001-2010 is not part of the same decade.

the 2000s are: 2000-2009 the 2010s are: 2010-2019 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.24.171 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a decade, and it's very similar to 2000s (decade). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A notice that you've been reported to Wikipedia Administrators

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alan Butler

Once again you deleted the page of a prolific author that sells well both in England and America. en.wiki has now more than 3,000,000 articles, many of them a mere one sentence long! Is there any justification to delete such a notable writer? (don't you claim to be "opposed to online censorship"?) Plus to that, I'd love to have your opinion as to the origin of the 360-degree circle, for in my opinion none explains best than his theory. I'd love a reply, thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

I deleted it confirming a previous deletion decision, leading to it being WP:SALTed (blocked from creation). May I suggest that, if you think the result of the deletion decision is incorrect, then you should bring up the matter at deletion review, or request creation at articles for creation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalism" and calming ruffled waters

Arthur, there's a lot of conflict on this page, and it's clear that sometimes your use of the term "vandalism" is upsetting people. Can you reconsider or ration your use of it, especially in edit summaries? As an admin, your role could emphasise leadership in creating linkages between editors much more, couldn't it? Tony (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help me reconfigure Twinkle so that the "vandalism" doesn't give a secondary reason? When an editor makes many edits which are clearly improper, it would be simpler if I could leave no specific reason, rather than specifying "Vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You could use the simple "revert" button, and use a custom edit summary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, I fear that continued accusations of "vandalism" are going to alienate newbies and upset established editors. Can something be done about this urgently, on a technical level? Until then, could you do the edit-summaries manually on these reversions. Is it not possible to engage the editor directly? That might garner some collaborators ... Tony (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Stop reverting non-vandalism as "vandalism"

Your use of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries where it is clearly not vandalism needs to stop. Continued abusive language in edit summaries may result in steps taken in the dispute resolution process, including a possible block. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Bsananda's edits, it qualifies as "intentional disruption". If that's not "vandalism", then what is it? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is not vandalism. I'm not convinced that those edits are intentionally disruptive, anyway, I think it's more likely a misguided attempt to help improve the articles, because what could he possibly gain by spamming Internet Archive links? But either way, it's not vandalism. You've clearly figured out how to revert and give a clear edit summary. You've been asked again and again to be more careful about your use of the term "vandalism". What will it take for you to finally heed that advice? kmccoy (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Jehochman's talk page

Ratel has made some comments regarding both of us that may interest you. My decision was to not report him for (WP:UNCIVIL). You can make your own call.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think it likely that they have coordinated activity, both on- and off- Wikipedia

So, are you going to substantiate that or withdraw it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I said "I think it likely", not that I have evidence. If I had intended to say I had evidence, I would have said so.

However, off-wiki coordination is impossible to disprove, and unlikely to prove, unless it was done in a blog or other public BBS. I had found evidence that KDP posted on your talk page about "problems" in the article which he was having difficult keeping in check, which sounds close enough to coordination to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. You really have firmly joined the waste-of-space brigade. Find something meaninguful - which will be tricky, since it doesn't exist - or find something useful to do instead William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Now look. Without some of the suggested modifications which you (among others) are opposing to the article, it clearly violates a number of Wikipedia policies. New editors (who may not be sock puppets) keep showing up on both sides of the issue, but still, under WP:BLP, something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

coordinated!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I think KDP is far too overzealous my coordination with him and WMC is only when I agree with them. Polargeo (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a fish. Do I need a group of scientists on wikipedia who all began by combating articles claiming that it is not a fish and who now maintain a list of their opponents to keep them in sight? No. I shall simply call it a fish myself as an individual editor and hope that the community will join me in correctly assessing its fishiness. "Mmmm...trout...." Flying Jazz (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a fish. Maybe another one is needed. :) Polargeo (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

warning

If you restore this unsourced edit and violation of WP:BLP again, I will block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to restore this edit of yours with a wholly neutral edit summary, such as "BLP violation redacted." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's as neutral as you're going to get: Restored comment with alleged WP:BLP violation redacted. I don't think anyone but you really thinks that stating that he's "considered" a n---- conspriacy theorist to be controversial, which is what WP:BLP restricts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wholly mistaken both about the ANI thread and your take on WP:BLP. If you edit war again in trying to restore a BLP violation you will very likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the only one who thinks that anything but n---- is a violation, and I strongly suspect that (in regard talk pages), even that isn't a violation. WP:BLP does allow unsourced opinions to appear on talk pages. It's still not controversial, and I don't know why you keep adding the word "negative" to your comments. It doesn't appear (except negatively) in WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced negative commentary about living persons is not allowed anywhere on en.Wikipedia. This is your last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, that's not what it says in WP:BLP. This should be considered your last warning, if you intend to block. The statement is that unsourced controversial statements about living persons are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Negative statements need not be controversial, and controversial statements need not be negative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it helps the debate, but WP:BLP does not contain the word "controversial" (however the word "negative" appears nine times).  HWV258  06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary wording seems to be:

• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

At least 4 of the references to the word "negative" are in a negative context; stating that it's not relevant whether the claim in "negative". I don't see the specific claim (that Alex is seen as a n---y conspiracy theorist) as controversial or contentious, or even necessary negative.

I don't know where "controversial" came from, except that it seems the standard in WP:BLPN and in {{uw-blp}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

pardon me for dropping in here, but it's perhaps time to look at WP:Wikilawyering now. Just because you don't see something as contentions doesn't necessarily qualify it as 'uncontentious'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, as much as I do despise thought policing and we certainly handle all BLP unevenly ... in this case there was just a few words that the editor in question should be coach to avoid defaming someone, even on a talkpage, without strong reliable sourcing. It's generally bad form and should be curbed - cite ____ publication or ____ critic calls so-and-so a nutter. Is this valid to include more content on _____ - to avoid even the impression that we are forum slandering. I do think threatening a block is a bit much but maybe there are circumstances that this is an ongoing issue that has been heating up. I would hope all involved could find better targets for the heat. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User 'InnerParty'

Call me crazy, but I think Tachyonbursts is trying a different approach. You saw how his last sock was banned. However, not a day after that occurred that the user 'InnerParty' shows up and archives the thread, and gives me a barn star, despite not having edited before this point. Tachyonbursts has always complained that Wikipedia acts like a secret society, a cabal if you will, and a name like 'InnerParty' seems to fall in line with this idea. I wouldn't be surprised if this new guy is yet another sock, being used as a sort of 'spy' or 'infiltrator' to further troll us and the cabal he believes we belong to.

What are your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In light of current events, I would like to revisit this observation... --Tarage (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I lean in favor at this time, but my sock identification is questionable, at best. I didn't recognize the ResearchEditor socks as actual socks, but only as wannabees, and I identified recently identified one which would have to have be a sleeper sock if it is a sock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2000s

Arthur, I have to be gone for a long time (6-8 months). I hope that you will have the time to continue monitoring 2000s (decade) and keep it from turning back into a trash heap. You're a hard-nosed, commonsense kind of guy, and I suspect that after January 1, 2010, they'll be adding graffiti all over that article. Good luck sir. Unschool 17:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of my edits have been keeping the date range in place, removing the 2001-2010 assertions, but I'll try to keep it in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:68.196.23.148

User:68.196.23.148 keeps vandalizing the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Can you neutralize him? Actually, a semi-block on the article would be even better. --Loremaster (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP warning

Please stop adding external links to unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .--Otterathome (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To what is that referring? If it's Alex Jones, it's not controversial that he is considered — well, whatever it is he is considered to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the above users contribs (user was blocked and another user brought it to ANI) and looks like this is the edit of yours he reverted.[36]. Just FYI, not agreeing with the reversion or warning.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. I had just come to that conclusion. I don't see a BLP violation, but, had I thought about it, I might have agreed that the comment he removed wasn't helpful, but it is certainly related to editing the article.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Mathematosis

Wikipedia:Mathematosis, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mathematosis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mathematosis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Well you were the only other one that contributed and that was the template it said I should use! Dmcq (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-block request for New World Order (conspiracy theory) article

Hello Arthur. Can you please put a semi-block on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article to prevent anonymous vandalism (which is bound to increase if we get Featured Article status)? --Loremaster (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind for now. User:SlimVirgin put a semi-block for a month. --Loremaster (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Institute, your interpretation?

I would like your feedback on this issue: Talk:Congressional_Budget_Office#Categorisation_rejection. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --VanBurenen (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vineland, New Jersey

I'm afraid I'm going to have to inquire as to what was "Absurd" about this edit. All I did was break up a horrendous paragraph that listed some historical interests in Vineland into a list and clean up some phrasing. — MusicMaker5376 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you just felt like undoing some of my edits? If you noticed in Phish, the comment I replaced in the lede is cited lower in the article. How about some WP:AGF? — MusicMaker5376 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I felt like undoing some of your edits, because the first one (in 600) really was absurd, in addition to being untrue, unsourced, and inappropriate, because it's not about a number, but a depth in feet.

1. Vineland; the list would be inappropriate even if it were sourced, so I reverted to the previous, less inappropriate, text.
2. Phish. There, you have a point. It would have been better to move the reference to the end, though, as it appears it also is from the same reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Last edit to pickup_artist

Could you please clarify why my last edit to pickup_artist was seen as vandalism? It seemed that I removing a link that does not work, standardized the English and obeyed the NPOV. Handrem (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted my revert of your edit. Some of your changes are more choice-of-redirect (chat up lines vs. pick-up lines), as I suspect that chat up lines is the British version, and some seem not contructive, but neither of you is a vandal or disruptive, other than the slow edit war. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

[37], I was wondering how to get rid of that without causing a stink. RxS (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this how I talk to people?

I never can figure out how to talk to people. Is this how to do it? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

I didn't start any war. Why did someone just erase what I wrote. Have you censured that person? The Guardian and New York Times are valid sources. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Is this how I talk to people?

I never can figure out how to talk to people. Is this how to do it? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

I didn't start any war. Why did someone just erase what I wrote. Have you censured that person? The Guardian and New York Times are valid sources. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Are you receiving this?

Is this message getting through to you? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Pete

Logistics Support System

The current description of LSS is wrong. What were my improvements flagged as advertising? The material is taken directly from the LSS web site which is a non-profit UN and World Health Organization sponsored agency. The existing Wiki is a combination of real and hypothetical when LSS is real. The LSS web site shoudl be considered conclusive. I copied the main description directly from the site and listed instances of its use from that site, with references to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.102.120 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's taken from the LSS web site, so it should be considered promotional material, although perhaps not technically advertising. It's still not a reliable source, as we define it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to take the LSS description of it's own website, I don't understand who would be more authoritative on this. Regardless, the current description (where did that come from?) is definitely wrong because it describes the solution poorly and as if it were a hypothetical when it's not. How do you suggest we improve and make it more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.102.120 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 4, actually...

The American Association of State Climatologists statement is expired and only in for historical references. And even several of the geological society statements are very borderline - "We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes" and "the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2" is very close to the mainstream. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming questions

Hi Arthur - I've recently been involved in the wild global warming talk page ride. If you have some time, I figured I'd ask you what you think about some issues, and I wanted to ask you in particular since we have diverging POV's and you've left at least a comment or two in there.

The first is the sourcing issue; scientific sources versus any sources. Clearly there is a large precedent for using only scientific sources for contentious science articles (and in fact science articles in general), and I think that this is good to avoid the newspaper sensationalist rubbish (even if a few good news articles must be thrown out with the bathwater), but there is nothing solid in policy (just some essays, and a note that the use of newspaper articles in science articles may depend on the situation) that requires that scientific publications are the only things that can be used. This leads to a ton of conflict and IMO POV-pushing on both the skeptic and alarmist sides of the spectrum, with lots of time being wasted as the normal contributors try to rein things in back to the scientific publications. I think that something in the policy should be firmed up, especially as the current WP:RS really sort of invites folks to find newspaper articles and scream bloody murder. The fact that the scientific pubs thing isn't stated up front makes me think that they aren't entirely to blame for it. What do you think about the use of scientific and popular publications, and do you have any ideas for a permanent solution to this issue?

Second, I'm sure editing the global warming related things takes years off of my life, and my patience has been worn pretty thin by the current general pissiness. Any ideas on how to make the environment better? Granted, it's a hugely polarizing issue, so maybe the only answer is to ask God, nicely. Awickert (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert non-vandalism as "vandalism"

Even if you diagree with something I kindly ask you to not label what clearly isn't vandalism as "vandalism". // Liftarn (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the Swedish reporter who is engaging in what would be vandalism if on Wikipedia. You are merely misinterpreting the legitimate sources, which do not say there was even a legal accusation of "organ theft". Your edit to Clea (band) on the other hand, really serves no plausible legitimate purpose, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ciring reliable sources is not vandalism. As for Clea (band) try searching for "loveshy". // Liftarn (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology article review

Hi Arthur! We're looking for some reviewers to get the sociology article to good status. Please be our reviewer if the mood grabs you! --Tomsega (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nuclearity

Hello Arthur Rubin, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Nuclearity - a page you tagged - because: A1: The article starts with the words "in mathematics", thereby giving the context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that "in mathematics" provides sufficient context, but it would be inappropriate for me to reinsert the tag. For example, for a non-notable (nonexistent) ambiguous building, would it be sufficient to state that "In California, the Einstein building is used to store used nuclear waste." Even if accurate, that would not be sufficient context to identify the building. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The expressions "tensor products" and "C*-algebras" leave me a little baffled—and I have a university degree in mathematics—but they seem to provide some context. I agree the article should state, in as direct a manner as possible, what nuclearity is: the property of ....

As it stands, the article is at AfD. I'm going to leave a comment there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Limit (mathematics)

Hi Arthur, regarding this edit, could you comment on the talk page about what you had problem with or selectively redo the parts of my edits that you approve of? I spent some time and think that I improved the article quite a bit, but I'd be interested in your opinion. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What bothered me is the mixed specification of limits; you had limit_x->1 f(x) = 0.4, but f(c) != L. I'll have to get back to that later. RL awaits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a minor typo from my version. When you have more time to look over it, let me know what you think of my paring down of the article. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry Niven

Good to see science fiction idiom making it into broader discussion :). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism accusations

Arthur, people are complaining. Does your auto-edit-summary still churn out vandalism accusations? Can you deal with it, please? Tony (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes. Sometimes most of the edit is vandalism, but there is a constructive component. (I hate it when that happens.) Any particular edit in question?

Is it possible to reprogram the "Vandalism" tag of TW to read "nonsense, vandalism, against clear consensus, or from a banned editor"? None of those SHOULD require an additional edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was Greg, it was a mistake. I actually only intended to undo that edit as moving an attempted CFORK, rather than reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Many editors rely on the accurate description in edit summaries, to save their time examining every single edit. Some get offended when an edit of theirs which is not manifestly vandalism gets reverted with just such an accusation. Thus using false or misleading edit summaries in the way you appear to be doing is a great disservice to fellow editors. I don't think there is any issue with the underlying edits, which appear to be kosher, but the manner in which you continue to do abuse edit summaries when an increasing number of people are objecting to is pushing the good faith in your dealings. If you are unable to use an automated tool without it generating a false summary, I guess it would be best not to use it. Thanks for your understanding. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add another complaint, about your claim a week later on this edit[38] of reverting vandalism. I'm guessing you're actually disagreeing with Time magazine and the many supporters of Shellenberger by removing him from "Sustainability advocates" over disagreements about tactics. I've added the category back. --NealMcB (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the editing of Hans Joachin Schellnhuber page

From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Bold added by id447

Focus on content

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Id447 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming your good faith, but ignorance of the actual references. Much of what you're doing seems inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you find something inappropriate, please tell what you find inappropriate and how you reached that conclusion.

Id447 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR 'Warning'

The 3RR claim is incorrect in point of fact. The phraseology was altered significantly between edits (sufficiently to satisfy Nil Einne).

On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'?

Your attitude is completely baffling. *Four* times now I've had a sourced remark deleted without prior discussion. You made one of those reverts and did not even make a remark in the talk page, let alone attempt to achieve consensus. I think it's pretty clear who's edit-warring.Dduff442 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

35 (number)

Just out of curiosity: What was wrong with my edit ([39])? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term before, and, if I were defining "free" and "fixed", I'd probably reverse the definitions we have in polyomino. It seems consistent with polyomino and the few relevant hits in google scholar, so I guess it's probably correct. Sorry about the disagreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Mathworld is consistent with that definition, too – and I agree that these terms need getting used to. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dishonesty

Why did you permit the allegations of dishonesty against me to stand uncorrected when you knew they were without foundation? Chelydramat and Beetstra have now retracted the claim. You allowed this to distort the edit-warring proceedings when you knew it was untrue (as stated in the edit summary here [40]). Whatever happened to integrity?Dduff442 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you were dishonest. I just said that, even if you were honest, you were still edit warring; and the material you wanted to add does not belong in Wikipedia, whether or not it was in the source material. I admit that I should have checked the accusations of dishonesty, but, as it doesn't affect what should be in the article, I didn't check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim you didn't check is not directly contradicted by the edit summary above. Fair enough. User:Nil Einne certainly *did* know the accusation was unfounded but allowed the allegation to stand uncontested.

The dishonesty allegation, endorsed by an admin (Beetstra, who has since retracted), was hanging over my head during the edit war investigation. It was unfair to proceed in this environment, forcing me to defend two allegations at once.

Beetstra's intervention was not only incorrect, it was improper. His objection was to the content but he first dressed it up on procedural grounds. I declared my intention to lodge an RfC, ceased editing and allowed Connolley's revert stand but still got blocked and rendered unable to defend myself against much more serious charges. The 'more in sorrow than in anger' interventions of a number of other admins take on a particularly aggravating tone of disingenuousness in this light.

Would you prefer to face charges of a breach of the 3RR or of dishonesty? If you were faced with both allegations, which would you expect an admin to devote most attention to? Would you be happy if the admin came to summary judgement on the edit-warring and completely refused to investigate the dishonesty allegation even when it was drawn to his attention?

How would you feel if this incident had occurred in the same way at a university? I'm just trying to broaden the scope of our imaginations with this last enquiry. What transpired was a travesty of due process reflecting none of the universal values that underpin civil society.

None of us is always as upright as we might hope to be, but we must nonetheless try to avoid a slide into total cynicism. This incident has offered me every encouragement to game the system, buddy-up with people and focus always on *my* objectives while ignoring points of principle. I'm going to make every effort to resist this encouragement.Dduff442 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop labelling good faith edits as vandalism

diff You should know better. ► RATEL ◄ 07:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can not assume good faith from the 99. anons. In this case, adding a template to an article without the article being in the template seems like vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But calling it "vandalism" is going to provoke hyper-reactions, Arthur; surely this much is clear by now. Do you intend to change the edit summaries you've been using? If not, I fear something will need to give. I am concerned about the potential to alienate editors—especially new ones. Tony (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy recovery...

[41] - I hope its very minor and you are back soon! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed indentation

Hi, as with SS hope you have a speedy recovery. Anyway just to let you know, I changed the indentation of your comment here as I wasn't sure it was intentional to have the two seperate parts on different indentation levels and it wasn't clear to me if you were the author of both until I checked. If it was intentional, you're obviously welcome to change it back but may I suggest you put your signature at the same level as the first one to make it clearer they're both yours? Or alternatively sign both comments? Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PUA page overhaul.

Hey, I noticed that you have an interest in the page “Pickup artist” (most likely since you created it :). I have studied the community and mostly RSD for a good time, and tracked down a bit of the history of how it grew.
So I untangled the mixing of different philosophies (creepy NLP and modern social dynamic studies) and overhauled the article.
I’m sure you like it. :)
But as you will see, it still needs some references to back things up. I wrote a list on what is needed on the discussion page of that article.
I can assure you that I wrote it all with good conscience of knowing this is true, and having sources. You can ask me for every single statement, and I will give you the source if needed. It’s just that I can’t offer a direct link, because often, there is no direct link, because e.g. it’s a DVD set that you have to buy for a thousand dollars (literally). (But hey, I can give you a bittorrent link ^^)

If you have any questions or critique, just write me at moc[tod]liamelgoog[ta]imanaz[tod]divan. :)
— 88.77.141.215 (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

First warning on United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 vandalism of External links. Flatterworld (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Second warning on United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 vandalism of External links. Flatterworld (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. A second editor has stated, on the article talk page, that most of the links are inappropriate, quoting different provisions of WP:EL than I did. You're on your own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just notifying you that Flatterworld has mentioned you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Evil saltine (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IP User Comment

Why the hell did you delete the band "2012"???? There is no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcelloho (talk • contribs) 11:50, December 9, 2009

Please see WP:BAND, and WP:CSD#A7. The oddity that the reason for the band's existence is notable, as reported in the article 2012 doomsday prediction, doesn't make the band, itself, notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Hey, I don't know if there was a row over this recently, but either way, I'm not sure this is legitimate use of the rollback. Grsz¹¹ 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? What's your specific objection? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo...

I fixed a typo here that potentially changes the meaning of a statement you have replied to. Your reply still makes the same amount of sense to me, but I thought you should know... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue

FYI: the page User:Ohms_law/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, an article which you contributed to, has recently been userfied. I planned on changing it to an article more generally about the Swedish Naming Laws eventually, so and assistance you can give in this respect would be more than welcome. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

why?

i am tolding by user: ruler to have source for my edit. I am adding source for everything but you revrt me. why? did you look at source? EVERTHING is true total even if it seems crazey. please look at my sources and do not cal l me dubious anymore please. 66.157.232.247 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as "sources" for Wikipedia articles. If the information is properly sourced in those articles, you may include those sources in 2000s (decade), although I have my doubts about the notability of those changes of power, in any case, but I probably wouldn't remove the entries if they were properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

okay. why cant wikipedia be sources? is wikipedia not true facts? thank you. 66.157.232.247 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, WP:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the paragraphs on Tertiary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

I apologize for substituting my judgment for yours on this; my understanding is that Blyton actually wrote more mystery novels than Harriet Stratemeyer Adams, in several different series including Secret Seven, and the entries bear me out. But I certainly have no problem in assuming that your edit was made in good faith; most people think of her as a children's author first and foremost. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that; the anon made a number of clearly inappropriate edits around the same time, so I assumed they were all bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they were all bad. She was already listed under B, while the anon (and you) added her under E.

OMG. I completely overlooked the location of the edit and thought you had made a common assumption that she was not a mystery writer; rather than simply do a rollback without an edit summary, I merely reverted to the previous state. Completely my fault; my sincere apologies for one of my occasional leaps before looking. Thanks for keeping the list in order and I'll hope you forgive my error. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sestroryetsk

why did you delete this i am gathering info currently and will update it by 12am michigan time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober270 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you work on it in your userspace, such as User:Rober270/Sestroryetsk arsenal, and move it into article space when you have something to say? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Your use of Reversion was wholly inappropriate. Obviously, you could disagree with the edit. But reverting implied more. As you now know. Find another way. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Very clearly, the See also in Monetization is appropriate. One can disagree with the connection, but one cannot disagree with the analogy. We should be able to work this out in a collegial manner. I did not revert this one. In any event, neither you nor i are vandals. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(and ec) Reversion implies nothing more than that there is nothing (or little) constructive in the edit. This is true. If I said "revert as vandalism", that would be inappropriate, and also not what I intended to say.

Also, it's not at all clear the #See also is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the possible relationship between a Ponzi scheme and monetization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm busy right now, but I will try to do better and find a citation and some authority on point. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Last warning before ANI

Why are these edits "vandalism"?

• [42]
• [43]
• [44]

They seem like good-faith edits to me, even if you have good reasons for reverting. Arthur, this has been going on for months. It is upsetting established editors and turning off newbies. Please let me know if you are not going to stop the accusations. Otherwise, I intend to take the matter to ANI. This will count as an official warning for that purpose. Tony (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur appears to be still using Twinkle. The obvious solution if for him to stop, or to reconfigure the default edit summary tout de suite. I note there was a half-hearted request above asking if someone can help reconfigure Twinkle for him, but that's just Lame (caps deliberate). We all know he can do better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first one didn't seem like a good-faith edit, in that it left nonsense in place. The second seemed to be made by the usual suspects without any indication that it was suitable, but probably not technically vandalism. The third was merely against WIkipedia guidelines and a 3RR violation, rather than bad faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you write tailored edit summaries, then? I know you get through a lot of monitoring, but the vandalism accusation, levelled continually, is assuming very bad faith. It would be nice to think that you're leading these people to do better, rather than making them feel falsely accused and thus angry. Tony (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first edit didn't leave nonsense in its place. The content made sense and was appropriate. The second was made by the "usual suspects"? What exactly does that mean? What you say about the third edit is also untrue. It was not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and nor was it a 3RR violation as you claim. The edit history clearly reveals there were no previous recent edits by this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_tax&action=history. So basically, you have a habit of labelling others' contributions as "vandalism" unjustifiably, and then there apparently aren't genuine reasons behind your own reversions - they're apparently frivolous. So it's not a case of not being able to re-configure twinkle. It's your own behavior. I suppose that means "I'll" be banned now. Someone does something wrong, another points it out, and the one pointing it out is the one that gets in trouble for it. That's what I call smart policy. Arthur has a long history of doing this. For every one person that's complained on his talk page, there's probably ten more that just got upset and left. So, Tony, I think your focus is off. What you need to do is to ask for a conference to discuss policy changes on how to deal with people who skirt policies and commit more sly forms of abuse. ClimateGate (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is "Among philosophers, Kant, for exampleand Hallucinogens" not nonsense?

The "usual suspects" is the 99.* anon who shows no signs of understanding Wikipedia policies, and adds unsupported references to tangentially related articles, categories, and portals to various organizations affiliated to 350.org, possibly to improve those organizations' positioning in web searches. The purpose is clearly not to improve Wikipedia.

The third edit was a 3RR violation, being the 5th time that the Hansen section (still not sourced in online materials, and still having some nonsense in it, although that nonsense could be Hansen's). It's also mostly inappropriate for that article. I've trimmed it again. Please do not restore the nonsense without a specific, exact citation. Saying that it's somewhere in Hansen's book is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was the wrong person editing in violation of Wikipedia policies. That statement was merely an unsourced BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And you might be banned if one could figure out which editor you are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about the first edit because I looked at the wrong side of the diff. I'm not changing what I said about the others. And the more you try to explain yourself, the more silly it looks as your explanations grow and change and you cross things out. ClimateGate (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vikram Samvat

New Year 2066 (Vikram Samvat) began on 14 April 2009 (Gregorian calendar). Therefore, 2065 – 2066 (Vikram Samvat) are correct for 2009 (Gregorian calendar), not 2064 – 2065! This also applies to other years on Gregorian calendar. For example, 2064 – 2065 in 2008 and 2066 – 2067 in 2010. Please, correct Template:Year in other calendars.

This code is correct:

{{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+56}} – {{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+57}}

I wrote it in Template:Year in other calendars several days ago, but no one corrected the template so far!

James Michael 1 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Generation X Page Vandalism

Please do NOT remove references to Manga on the Generation X page. This was previously mentioned on the Generation Y page, and the source CLEARLY shows the manga boom starting with Generation X and continuing with Generation Y. It is a part of pop culture. It will also be expanded. Do not just delete information from an article. With it only mentioned on the Generation Y page, and with an admission of Generation X, it made it seem as if manga is only part of Generation Y, and that is wrong. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's part of pop culture, but not specifically related to Gen X or Gen Y by most "generational" standards.

It is a part of pop culture. And because there was a boom in the market for manga and anime, I think it fits in the article. There has been no further discussion on this except for a non registered user deleting the information without a real discussion. Please do NOT delete information without discussion. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reference is unreliable; in fact, it seems to have no credibility whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't my own reference; someone else added it to the Generation Y page. The article is written by a development specialist at Johns Hopkins HealthCare LLC. This is research. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be unpublished research, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At best? Does this need to be a scientific article? There are other references. I don't know why something that is accepted by the majority of people is being deleted. There was no discussion on this at all. How you can deny the boom of an industry is mind boggling. If you look at the history of manga and anime itself, the rise in popularity is with both Generation X and Generation Y. You seem to just delete information left and right with no real discussion or consensus. I will ask other registered users to contribute and ask that you stop deleting these references in both articles. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at best. Even in pop culture articles, we need sources with a reputation for fact-checking. If this were published in a scientific journal, or even a newspaper, or if the authors were recognized experts with peer-reviewed publications in the field (and the article could be credibly attributed to those authors, rather than an unidentified party stating it was theirs), it would be allowable as a source. The source would specifically have to mention Gen X and Gen Y, rather than just mentioning years, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one article that mentions both Generation X and Generation Y. Others mention dates, or a specific time period, which encompasses those generations. Why does all pop culture have to be mentioned in a scientific journal? Doesn't the history of manga and anime support the fact that manga (and anime) are part of the pop culture of these generations? Manga started becoming popular in the 1970s and 1980s and throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It continues to be popular, but the great "boom" occurred during Generation X and Generation Y. Also, if we go by what you say, then no mention of music genres, Harry Potter, or other references to pop culture should be on either Generation X or Generation Y without "scientific research". I think the reference was a decent one. Doesn't anyone remember the huge popularity of Hello Kitty growing up in the 1980s? I was born in 1981, and I watched a lot of anime. Here are some other links (not major references though) that touches upon the history of Japanese art. http://www.contemporaryartproject.com/cap/otherCONTENT/superflat.htm http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/category/styles/anime-styles/ http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/takashi-murakami-on-why-the-war-helped-create-japanese-pop-culture/ http://www.thegreenwolf.com/pcmreviews.html

Also, the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams http://www.anime.com/Japanese_Culture_and_History/ Both anime and manga were becoming more mainstream in the 1990s. I'd also like to mention (but not use as a source obviously) that this is in a 1990s article on Wikipedia itself. If manga and anime boomed when Genereation Xers and Generation Yers were growing up, it should not be left out of pop culture.

I'd be more than happy to read these books and others to expand the articles, as well as the anime and manga pages on Wiki. You don't always have to use the terms "Generation X" "and "Generation Y", though that article used first did because it was a research article. If it falls in line with the dates for the generations, that should be fine. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I let the other editors know that I am aware of the three-edit rule. I do not plan on adding anything back until further discussion. I respect the input from everyone involved in this discussion and will agree to the consensus until further review. I am glad the reference was removed from the Generation Y page as well. My main concern was pop culture references that started in Generation X having no acknowledgment of that on the Generation Y page. I understand the concern for valid references on Wikipedia. I still think the source is a good reference, but maybe it can be used as a secondary reference to back a "published source"? I don't see any harm in secondary sources if it is research that supports a stronger source.

I only ask that the the above links be looked at, and the history of anime and manga and popularity and rise of both in Generation X and Generation Y be taken into consideration for possible later addition to both articles. I acknowledge that the article pages for both manga and anime somewhat touch upon the history of both, but still think they are an important pop culture. The enormity of Comic-Con attests to this. I added one reference I found on the subject that incorporates the dates within Generation X and Generation Y; the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams. Right now, I can't think of others, but there are some tied into Japanese History/Modern History, and how anime and manga became popular not just in Japan and Asia, but in North America, Europe, and around the world. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Not trying to have an edit war, just new to all this.

Not sure if this is where to discuss this

What is an "inadequately sourced BLP violation" and what would need to be done to have it be adequately sourced? I'm assuming a link to the quote? Just want to get this figured out.

It seems ridiculous to me that the section titled Review should contain unfactual information but that any attempts to edit the site to address this should be a problem. In fact, the Rebuttal to Reviews shouldn't even be necessary. What should be necessary is that the reviews be factual. They are not. I found the movie to have its share of flaws, but the supposed ones listed in the reviews were not legitimate. I have no desire to defend the movie, per se, but the integrity of Wiki is the issue here. This Wiki entry seemed entirely biased. It should be neutral if it cannot substantiate its claims. The documentary did not use "blurry pixelated photos that don't show anything." The narrator did not hint that the plane crashed in the Atlantic. These are untruths. Truthful, critical reviews would have been appreciated. Blatantly untruthful reviews do not deserve a place on the page.

S E Crowder (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)S E Crowder

S E Crowder (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)S E Crowder —Preceding unsigned comment added by S E Crowder (talk • contribs)

Although the reviews clearly are factual, that is not what is relevant to their inclusion. What is relevant is that the reviews are from reliable sources. On the other hand, the "rebuttal" is clearly not factual, does not come from an identifiable reliable source, and specifically accuses the reviewers of lying, so cannot be included in Wikipedia, per WP:OR and WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

It wasn't editing years, the strangeness of 2010, 2011, 2012 was something I was investigating. Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Sorry. Feel free to unblock, but it did make the change after I reverted it. I'm going to bed now. I asked, though, following the final RfC, and it seemed that year in X was also supposed to be exempt from automatic delinking. There were at least 100 of those articles edited per WP:MOSUNLINKDATES, although I don't know whether the edits were appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This exercise is pretty much complete anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Translate to portuguese

Hi! May I translate this article to portuguese (about James Hansen)? Please, how can I get this done? I wouldn´t verify each source you put on your article; I just want to translate because I think it is very interesting. Thanks for your help. Carlalevon (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Formats for the current year

I have a suggestion when 2009 finally rolls into 2010: slightly change the format.

Example:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year. It is the 2010th year of the Anno Domini/Common Era, the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade.

It has been designated as... Homerjay90 (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on the "Life University" page

User 8.17.32.194 has so far twice vandalized the Life University page. He is deleting extensive portions of referenced information that is important to understand the history and political orientation of the institution. He has not posted any reasons for the changes in the discussion section and leaves the article with a biased POV in favor of the school. So far I've had to revert the article twice to undo his vandalism on October 6th and 7th. Please do something to stop it.~~AB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.104.152.8 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 October 2009 Arthur Rubin 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)