User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007

What?
You told Ilena that silicone is safer than saline? wow. You perhaps need to read a 2006 study on proteins found on implants (that were in the body over time) that are known to cause local immune reaction and the authors state that more research needs to be done to determine if there is any long term systemic reaction. The 'wealth' of studies done are still relatively short. The FDA has itself stated there is insufficient data on any one implant to determine rupture rate.. The scientists are again suggesting that it is still unknown what the long term effects are of rupture. That is one reason why the FDA recommends periodic MRIS after implantation, to detect rupture. There seems to be no clear evidence of systemic illness but this is by far not a given (especially with rupture, for which there is scant data). Where you got the idea that silicone is safer than saline is um, well, not very scientific.Jance 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are few, if any studies, about the safety of saline implants, and the (probably lesser) effects of the (more common) leaks. I think I did see a meta-study which purported to show that saline implants had fewer side-effects than silicone.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know there are few studies on saline. Part of the problem is the history of all implants.  And the litigation.  I just saw that you said here that saline had fewer side effects than silicone.  That is true. Jance 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul Thompson RS
Please see and address the notes on the Talk page? What of the listed sources are not RS and why? Thanks! Please address there. Moscatanix 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Article deleteion
How do I get an article deleted then?--Beguiled 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page, before I knew you were asking me. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving page
Dear Artur,

I am sorry, I do not understand your message on my talk page. What should I do? Where is the problem?

"An example of what you should not be doing: Creating articles in the main name space which are redacted archives of your talk page. Please move Archive-Gadomski to a subpage of your talk page AT ONCE. I'd do it, except that I don't know where you want want it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

Is the problem with the name of the page? - It can be changed, for example, as Adam M. Gadomski/Archive 2006, BUT I do not know exactly how to do it.

Thanks in anticipation of your help.

Sincerely

Adam

gadomski_a (a)casaccia.enea.it --192.107.77.3 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to be logged in order to move a page. When you are, and if your account is sufficiently aged (I don't think there's an edit count requirement), and you go to the page, there's a move tab at the top.  For instance, when editing this page I see tabs


 * user page
 * discussion
 * edit this page
 * history
 * unprotect
 * delete
 * move
 * unwatch
 * unwatch

When editing the page in question, you would probably see (I don't have a non-admin account to check)
 * article
 * discussion
 * edit this page
 * history
 * move
 * watch (or unwatch, depending on whether you are presently watching the page)

Click the move tab, and follow the instructions. The new name should be something like User talk:Adam M. Gadomski/Archive 2006, but both "User talk" and your name are important. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.
Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

please read agreement between myself and the other user
Archiving is part of the deal between us so that a frank and free debate can occur between disinterested parties on thier own accord and i think your use of bold type is unecessary. Please can you create the correct archive page then as you saem to know how to.--Lucy-marie 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the deal located? I think perhaps "hiding" the section may be more appropriate than archiving; but I'll archive that section alone for you.  I'll come back later today to re-add my comment, if still appropriate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The deal is located in the below section from the talk page: Look you and i are never going to agree and i think you and I should step back and let other people decide on the wording as we are just going to keep on butting heads. Also, please can neither of us influence the views of others by talking to them about this issue through e-mails or by using firends or on talk pages or by posting any more comments on this talk page. You and I have both had fierce arguments over this and I think we shoud let other decide before we get what happened previously happening agian. I think it is the best way for us to get a fair and balanced result. (Lucy-marie - You didn't sign above). It's precisley becasue I want to let others decide that I started this Request for Comments strand in the first place. No, we are never going to agree, quite simply because you are wrong as others here have pointed out, as evidence I have presented to you has shown and as the evidence even you presented shows. Remember, your original assertion was that there is no such word as 'persons' in English (whether British, American, Australian, whatever doesn't matter). That part is now resolved - the word is perfectly valid in British English (and others). I would also point out that you subverted the RfC process by declaring it closed, blanking a page and creating two new ones, which I nominated for deletion and other users speedied. I have been more than happy to let others decide, but given the weight of evidence and opinions already expressed here and in the deletion pages, is there any point in prolonging it? Is it time that you accepted that you have learned something and that the Ebglish language is a wondeful thing that never cease to amaze us? Incidentally, I have just come back from the Co-op where the sign next to the bacon slicer reads: "Persons under the age of 18 may not operate this machine." Emeraude 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Yes i do think we should prolong this so we can see exactly what the disinterested views of other users are and i am not sure what the Ebglish language is i think you meant English language. I'm sorry i forgot to sign above and don't know how to do the unsigned thigey. So i think this page should be archived and a fresh discussion should be initated excluding the pair of us. this would satisfy me and would settle the argument as i would wholy accept the outcome. I also refer that we should not contact anybody on this issue at all until the RFC is completed and fully implmented. So can you agree to my proposal? Also I do not think either of us should close the rfc either.--Lucy-marie 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its a lot to read but its all intertwined.--Lucy-marie 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right arrow?
I was reading some of your comments on an article we have both been editing and...I saw the notation of a right arrow which I presumed meant "Imply" and I thought "oh yea that's the mathmetician" and then I wondered how to do that on WIkipedia. Can you help? Thank you!Jance 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which right arrow?
 * In math formulas, it's \rightarrow (or \Rightarrow for a double arrow).
 * With the standard skin, when editing a file, there's a line (below Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It Will be delete.) which reads:

Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your name: ~ For the arrow in text mode, click on (or copy/paste) that arrow. Alternative forms involve HTML or Unicode arrows, but this one is simpler. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anderson
Hi, you reverted my edit without giving any reason. I guess you are aware of exponentiation, or the broad consensus in the mathematical community that 00 = 1, at least when only natural numbers are considered. I think this should be made clear in the article, since the usual arguments in favour of 00 = 1 show the problems with Anderson's claim that "transreal arithmetic is total": in standard arithmetic, an identity like $$(a+b)^n=\sum_{k=0}^n{n\choose k}a^kb^{n-k}$$ is valid for arbitrary $$a,b,n$$; if 00 is left undefined, the situation can be salvaged by adding "whenever both sides are defined". In Anderson's case, one needs to modify this to "whenever both sides are not equal to &Phi;" or something like that, showing that universal validity of identities must be sacrificed in order to achieve the totality of arithmetical operations. Of course, all of this is original research for WP purposes, but the current exposition is misleading. IMO the entire section should be removed, as was suggested on the talk page.--80.136.148.67 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 00 = 1 when the exponent is considered over the integers, but is normally considered undefined if the exponent is considered over the reals. It's not appropriate in the context of Anderson or transreals.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an outdated point of view, especially in the cs community, cf. Knuth's Two notes on notation or things like the C++ standard.--80.136.176.202 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He claims it's a mathematical concept, and exponentiation makes it clear that 00 is undefined in the reals. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just that calculus people are more likely to leave 00 undefined. Anderson himself claims that division by zero is a computing problem, and the article focuses on the comparison with IEEE arithmetic. That's why the cs point of view has to be taken into account. From a purely mathematical view, he defines some kind of algebraic structure, and algebraists know that a0=1 for just any a, real or whatever. Of course, he tries to do analysis, but I cannot take these attempts seriously. As I said before: IMNSHO this discussion is already more than this theory deserves.--80.136.176.202 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD
I was wondering if you can close an AFD? SetofFive 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one do you have in mind? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation This page reads like an advertisement, not notable IMHO, and has some serious problems. I think it should be deleted. SetofFive 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

21st–31st century
Why did you revert my perfectly accurate information additions for those centuries? Not only is the capitalization of "calendar" in "Gregorian calendar" inaccurate, but my additions are 100% correct and needed to amplify understanding of what era these centuries are in. If you don't respond with reasonable excuses, I will re-revert. &mdash; RunningAway 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not accurate, and your incorrect use of AD adds new bias in the AD/CE dispute. I'll revert back once, unless you can explain why AD is appropriate rather than CE.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, how are they not accurate? Secondly, this is exactly what was added: " anno Domini (common) era ''", which identifies both the AD and CE calendar era, I don't see why you're assuming this is biased toward AD..?. &mdash; RunningAway 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change
Greetings. The article of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interspersing comments
Arthur, I was totally unaware that it is not acceptable to intersperse comments in talk pages. Thanks you for setting me straight, I thought QG was being unreasonable, but I see I was wrong. I will try to correct that. --Dematt 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI
My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate it if you, as an admin, make sure I conduct things properly on my talk page. I have listed a few conditions which I believe are a good start. Even though Ilena doesn't seem to care to treat me fairly, I want to treat her fairly by giving her an opportunity to document her serious charges and vicious personal attacks, which haven't yet gotten her (or User:Steth, who is every bit as vicious) indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, as such attacks would have for myself or any other editor who made them. If I don't treat her fairly, please correct me immediately! -- Fyslee 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better if an uninvolved admin would comment. I do have previous history with Ilena on Usenet.  I don't think it's affecting my judgement, but it would be best if I stayed out of this as an admin.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

About proposing deletion
The proposition of deletion of the article "ARTHUR" is, from my point of view, rather drastic. It is an article about a military vehichle, it is not translated from swedish by a german or dutch (but written by a Swede) and "bad grammar" is hardly a reason to delete a semi-serious article. The reason it does'nt have any english references is mainly because there are no english references. And military equipment that is rather nationally unique is not very publicly accounted for either. If you think it has bad grammar, maybe you should correct it, instead of deleting it?

Patrik. (5102 Back)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5102 Back (talk • contribs) 20:58, January 17, 2007  (UTC)
 * I apologize for the comments about "translation"; it's just that the grammar and word formation used is more German/Dutch than English. English normally doesn't run multiple words together to produce complicated concepts, but provides hyphenation.  However, the reason I'm upset with that is that I can't figure out what you're saying.
 * Also, remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. In other words, the article needs references for anything not obvious; and what may be obvious to you as a (former?) member of the Swedish military may not be obvious to me.  It is permitted for references to be in a foreign language if no English reference is available, but references there must be.
 * Perhaps you would do better writing the article in the Swedish Wikipedia first, and then add the link here. However, I'll withdraw the proposed deletion — for the moment — provided that you work on the encyclopedic tone of the article as well as locating references.  (The references do not have to be accessible online.  Swedish newspaper articles or articles in the land equivalent of Jane's Fighting Ships would be quite acceptable.) If I removed everything which is unreferenced, as I should, there wouldn't be enough left to construct an article.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

ICR
So do you wish to discuss your revert? I didn't see anything in the talk page. 66.75.8.138 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything supporting your version, either. Do you wish to discuss your reverts?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! I made good faith attempts to edit the article.  Patriot made a large number of additions and alterations (16 straight) from January 6th to the 8th.  I made what I felt were hard thought edits and put in time and effort.  Many of those alterations and additions did not deal with changes that Patriot made.  I didn't just revert his edits, but worked with what he had.  When he got upset he chose to blanketly revert every change I made, without comment.  That's uncalled for.  It's hard to reach any concensus when that occurs and I somehow doubt that is Wikipedia policy. 66.75.8.138 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you wish to discuss your badgering? FeloniousMonk 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To whom was that directed? "66", Patriot, or me?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2007 January 21
Why are you arguing for the revival of a troll's attack on a Wikipedia user? Jkelly 09:19, January 21, 2007
 * He may be a troll, but I don't see an actual attack. It's not easy to read deleted versions, so I may have missed something.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb
I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fyslee.2FIlena.2C_et_al. here]. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're insight is needed
As someone who would know firsthand, would you mind dropping by Haldane's dilemma and making sure it's status within the scientific community is accurately represented. I'm afraid I'd be talking out of school to go much further than I already have. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do, sometime this weekend. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not this weekend, and I may not be the right person, either. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Uncountable set
As our expert on the axiom of choice and its negation, I would like you to please comment on a disagreement which I am having with about Uncountable set. When ~AC, does "uncountable" mean $$\kappa > \aleph_0$$ or $$\kappa \nleq \aleph_0$$? I prefer the former and he wants the latter. JRSpriggs 10:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commented on article talk page. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. CMummert · talk 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I, also, thank you for your quick response. JRSpriggs 09:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

help
help

Hi, i need your help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow, is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Please contact me for more information.

Thanks

Senatorto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senatorto (talk • contribs) 16:16, January 21, 2007  (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disjunction
Hello there. I've seen your name around the 9/11 articles on occasion, where you seem to be both a voice of sanity and scrupulously fair, so I hope you will help out here. The article on exclusive disjunction was recently moved to the title `exclusive or' after a debate which I unfortunately missed, the main argument for which was predicated on the fact that Google turns up more hits for `exclusive or' (which is ambiguous anyway &mdash; see my comments on the talk page ). I moved the article back to its proper name, since I think that calling it `exclusive or' is akin to calling the article on multiplication `timesing' or the article on addition `plussing'. I would appreciate it if you could cast a glance over the situation and tell me if I am being unreasonable &mdash; I just don't think mathematical terminology is best decided upon by the consensus of a dozen Wikipedia editors who may or may not actually know what they are talking about. Thanks awfully. Rosenkreuz 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On another "disjunction", my followup to your questions.--I&#39;clast 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Furstenberg
Look who got a Wolf Prize for Mathematics. Charles Matthews 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

grammer
Yours was definitely better, thanks! --Dematt 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kauffman
Arthur, I see the two citations related to Dr. Kauffman. I also see that you are defending the "diminished" version of the paragraph that he is referenced in. Am I missing something. His credentials look pretty good to me, but I'm thinking that you have knowledge from previous discussions that I am not privy to. Is he competition to Barrett? I see he notes that he fights fraud in "mainstream medicine". Are they rivals? --Dematt 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I would prefer the diminished version — he is the only critic who provides a "formal" web site review, but I feel the longer version gives Kauffman's views too much credit.  In any case, we need to calm down while the 3RRs are straightened out....
 * I'm really not sure what Kauffman's motivation for the article is. (I don't see a direct reference to Kauffman fighting fraud, but I don't have a copy of his book.) I suspect that Barrett may praise some aspects of "mainstream medicine" which are opposed by what he (Barrett) sees as quacks, which are among the ones that Kauffman thinks are, themselves, quackery or fraud on the part of "mainstream" practitioners.  But I really don't know.  Gigabutterfly's note that he (Kauffman) doesn't find any studies which support Barrett's conclusions suggests that Kauffman is "cherry-picking" the studies, rather than that Barrett is full of censored .  I'm almost certain there's some history between them personally, or one has attacked the pet project of the other.
 * You may have noticed I filed 3RR reports against both Gigabutterfly and Levine2112. (I'd like to goad SA into a 3RR violation, but that would be wrong.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not interested in revert wars. That's pretty much why I backed out.  I am interested in trying to calm things down on this article and the other articles that Fyslee and llena are a part.  I would miss either of them.  There was a time that the Chiropractic article was this bad, but we were able to reach consensus by using NPOV and V and RS information.  You were an important part of that and I do remember you were a solid editor that resisted POV editing.  This is the source that is cited on the QW page that says he is fights mainstream medicine fraud.  To me, that makes him a pretty reliable source about the same stuff Barrett does.  His credentials look pretty good to me, better than Barretts for sure.  If anyone is in a position to make the assessment, he would be the one, don't you think?  I am not into the long versions.  I personally think that a few sentences are all that is necessary to make a point.  But I am open to the fact that I may not have all the information that you and others have been privy to.  --Dematt 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if competition is the right word. I had never heard of Kauffman before his mention here. From his track record (at least what's been mentioned here -- JSE, book, etc. - I suspect his version of "exposing fraud in mainstream medicine" is akin to the type we find from Bolen, Mercola, Null, Icke, Rense, Martini, Townsend Letter, etc.. IOW outright enmity to the whole system (and using the enmity they create to promote and sell unproven methods), rather than concentrating on exposing specific proven cases of pharmaceutical industry abuses, serious malpractice, criminal fraud by MDs, crooked dentists, (incompetence & iatrogen problems aren't fraud, so I don't include them), etc.. Those areas are already covered pretty well by law agencies, many consumer groups, most medical societies and their journals, all alternative medicine groups, etc.. Barrett has chosen to concentrate on a niche that has been ignored and is unrelated to those matters, leaving them to those who are already doing it. Like I said at the start, I don't know much about him. I haven't read his book or seen other examples of his actual criticisms, so I could be misjudging him by his use of the language typical of anti-medical and anti-science groups. If anyone can supply some links here to more of his stuff I'd appreciate it. That will help us determine if he's a real medical fraud buster, or just another quack booster using anti-medical rhetoric. -- Fyslee 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's kinda what I'm looking for, too. But we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions that he must be a quack because he is criticizing a quackbuster.  His credentials are at least as good, if not better than Barrett's when it comes to research and pharmaceuticals.  He does back up his arguments with research, both primary and peer reviewed.  But it is not whether he is right or wrong in their disagreement on the eight subjects that he reviewed, it's that he noted that Barrett had not cited these same sources (or anything similar) when making his own recommendations for proper diet, etc.  IOWs, his commentary was basically saying Quackwatch was not going about it in a scientific way either - the pot is calling the kettle black. Therefore it, too was undependable. --Dematt 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, critics of quackbusters aren't automatically quacks. (There are exceptions.....;-) There are certainly legitimate criticisms that aren't designed to be, or used as, straw man or ad hominem attacks to divert attention from unethical practices and advertising. It's hard for me to really evaluate Kauffman because I don't have any of his stuff, and I have plenty of other things that interest me more, but if anyone will post something here, I'll try to check it out. I suspect your last couple sentences are closer to the truth. -- Fyslee 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

3rr
I think your nomination for my 3RR on the admin was a bit premature. The diffs which you provide don't show any violation. My fear is that despite this, I will get blocked just for being nominated in the middle of this debacle. Please check my edits and my discussion on the Quackwatch talk page. I was being judicious and cooperative, and offering constructive advice for the newbie (and I belive showed incredible patience and restraint). I urge you to un-nominate me (i.e. delete your entry on the 3RR admin noticeboard). Thanks. Levine2112 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime numbers
Hi Arthur

I note you removed my edits within a few seconds:
 * a prime number (often just called a prime) is a natural number that has exactly two divisors - the number itself, and 1. 3, 5 and 7 are prime numbers, but 9 is not (it has three divisors - 1, 3 and 9). Nor is 1 a prime number, because it has just one divisor (1).


 * Numbers with more than two divisors are called composite. The number 1 is the only counting number that is neither prime nor composite.

I think you have changed it from something which is generally accessible to something which only mathematicians may appreciate - I feel a lot of Wikipedia suffers from this - it clearly has too many mathematicians involved! (I too am one, but not a 'notable' one - I am more concerned about access to the subject: most people learn more from a few well-chosen examples than from a rigorous definition. (The current version relies heavily upon natural numbers, but if you look at that you find that Wikipedia doesn;t know whether zero is included or not .....)

Regards
 * Johnbibby 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wet willy as a school prank
I'm rather perplexed by your insistence on deleting Wet Willy from the school pranks article. Google gives me 87,500 hits for the phrase. Were this a rarity or a neologism, I could understand your objection; but this is not the case. Either way, the same treatment should be given to the article Wet Willie as to the section of the school pranks article, since they contain the same claim. Matt Gies 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. There are no references there, either, so I redirected it to the band.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still not being thorough in your (still perplexing) attempt to nullify the existence of the wet willy. The phrase still redirects to the very same school pranks article where you first deleted the (accurate) description of the act, where a [citation needed] would probably have been much more appropriate. Matt Gies 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't summarily delete the redirect, and I don't have time for the WP:RfD process at the moment. Maybe next week.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3rr
You're reverting too much. See which has not yet been determined William M. Connolley 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

your help desk request
I don't know if anybody changed the werdnabot template, but on my browser, the text from that template is still overlapping the archive template. I'm going to enclose the two in a table with one row and two columns, which fixes it as far as I can tell. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sashato
Sorry, it's problem with sr: wikipedia, we have articles about centurys and thay are linked to english articles like 42nd century, and this page is redirect on english Wikipedia, i will try to remove all mistakes on sr: wiki buy bot too. Thank you about noting me for this. -- Sasa  Stefa  novic  &bull; 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfeiffer Treatment Center
Contrary to what you posted in your edit comments, not all of the links were "already referenced in the article." Please undo this change for which there was no justification!--Alterrabe 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Two were there. I'm moving the remaining one to a cite.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BvR template
Arthur, I saw you edited the template on BvR. Don't you think the bottom template should also say that Barrett edits here, too? --Dematt 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're good! Thanks! --Dematt 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to Hair Mineral Analysis

 * I would be interested to know why you consider my mention of the principles of epistemology to be a sign of bias? I was merely pointing out that the articles that are quoted against hair tests are do not rule out that hair analysis may be clinically useful, but rather show that as they are done today, there are serious flaws.  To point out that something is neither completely disproven nor completely proven is not bias to my mind, but rather to explain how the scientific process works, and what the controversies about it are.  Why did you remove this?


 * I would also like to know why you deem my mentioning that hair analysis could potentially obviate the necessity of a lumbar puncture to be "unsourced" or "biased." The Multiple Sclerosis page in wikipedia, to which I linked, mentions that lumbar punctures are sometimes necessary to diagnose MS.  What is "unsourced" or "biased" about this suggestion?


 * Why is my writing that there are not one but three debates swirling about hair analysis in alternative medicine "unsourced" or "biased?" It essentially is exactly what Barratt says!


 * Why is writing that hair analysis has suffered from benign neglect a sign of "bias" or an "unsourced statement." If I source a 1978 article showing that there is clear data that it could be of use in diagnosing MS, and nothing has been done in the next 28 years, I cannot see how you take issue with this claim.  Is it not evident from the article itself that these discoveries have been neglected for 28 years?  Could you please explain me your reasoning?

I await your answers.

--Alterrabe 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your use of the "principles of epistemology" involves original research. The principles, themselves, could probably be quoted in the article, but their relevance would need to be establed.  In other words, unless you can find a WP:RS that hair analysis could be useful (which, as you note in one of the sections I deleted, doesn't actually exist at the moment), the use is inappropriate.


 * Your mentioned that "mentioning that hair analysis could potentially obviate the necessity of a lumbar puncture" is your synthesis of the information in the article.  Leave the facts in immediate proximity (hair analysis may be used for diagnosis, and that "conventional" diagnosis requires surgery (with source)), and let the readers decide for themselves.


 * I may have been wrong about the "three debates". It's calling it a "summary" that I find questionable.  If it can be rewritten to remove that word without changing the meaning of the paragraph, go ahead.


 * That "hair analysis has suffered from benign neglect" is a conclusion. Unless you can provide a WP:RS to that effect, it shouldn't be in the article.  My initial reasoning (calling it bias) was based on the lack of supporting information in the article, but, even if it were, there, it would still be WP:OR.


 * The edits I reverted had the tone of an academic paper. We're trying to write an encyclopedia.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In detail, I'm no longer sure why I completely removed

"While there are studies that suggest that hair analysis could be useful in clinical practice as a diagnostic tool,, to this day there are no medical consensus about the wisdom and prudence of using hair mineral tests in clinical practice."


 * "strong, if not compelling" needs to be removed; "unaniomous beliefs" should be replaced by "medical concesnsus", and the last sentence is yet another conclusion. Never mind, I found why I removed it.  I said it shouldn't be in the "background" section.  Looking closely, it just introduces the two clincal studies mentioned below.  Perhaps a sentence following those studies adding a summary might be appropriate, but if you cannot find a source for that, it may not be approriate, either.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer some of your points:


 * I strenuously disagree with your assertion that including the principles of epistemology in the article is "original research." Epistemology is the logical theory or taxonomy of knowledge, and every bit as rigorously logical as math.  The non-mainstream use of hair tests is an area in which there is as yet, no clarity on their use; thus it is entirely relevant and appropriate to explain to the reader the principles of epistemology so that he or she can better understand the issues at hand.


 * The basic rules of epistemology are clearly defined, and logically consistent. To explain the epistemology of our knowledge on the use hair tests in alternative medicine and medical research is no more to conduct original research than is to rewrite 10^0.5 as SQRT(10), or to compare two birthdates, and write that one person was born before the other.  To assert that this is a conclusion or original research would be as far-fetched as to claim that my writing that the Ryan study is now 28 years old is a "conclusion" or "original research," because the Ryan study doesn't explicitly say that it is 28 years old.


 * To explain the epistemology of hair test use is simply to perform a logical operation on the data. Your assertion that the onus is on me to supply a WP:RS that hair analysis could be useful, is to insist that the absence of proof is proof of absence.  This is either faulty logic, or the expression of a (false) POV.  Not even Barratt argues that there is proof of absence, but rather points to an absence of proof.  To take logic to its extreme: until it is conclusively proven that there can be no further uses for hair analysis as a diagnostic aid, we have to assume that it is possible that there are some.  I am intent on reentering this line of thought into the HA article.  Are you going to want to ask for arbitration on this?


 * Benign neglect is a strong, but, I think accurate description of the state of affairs. Would you agree that writing "That even though there are research findings of significant discrepancies between the hair of those with some ailments and healthy individuals, that suggest that hair analysis could have further diagnostic uses, little if any progress was made in a twenty-three year span in further elucidating their significance and introducing them into clinical practice?"  This is not original research, but rather comparing Barratt and Seidel, who write that it is useless in clinical practice, to Ryan and Holmes, who proved otherwise.  Could our POVs be affecting our judgments?


 * I do not agree with your assertion that my "synthesis" of the facts is uncalled for. We know that that MS is an illness.  We know that illnesses are determined by diagnosis, and we know that illnesses are diagnosed by finding clinical markers that differentiate them from healthy states.  Obviously, this means that this clinical marker could play a role.  Now we don't know whether this definitely can be used to diagnose MS, but we do know darn well that it could possibly be used to diagnose MS, and, by definition, this article is precisely about what is not already well-established and universally accepted in regards to hair tests.  As such, my "synthesis" is legitimate, even the best way to underscore the uncertainties that surround the use of hair test in alternative medicine.  Do you have any comments?--Alterrabe 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to revise and extend my remarks. I meant mediation, and wrote arbitration. My profuse apologies.--Alterrabe 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd accept mediation, if we can't reach an equitable agreement, provided we can agree on the scope. (The mediation in re Barrett v. Rosenthal, which, as you can earlier in my talk page, went to arbitrartion, failed because the participants couldn't agree on the scope.)  I feel that your version of the article (just before my trim) provides undue weight toward hair mineral analysis being an acceptable medical practice, even if the WP:OR concerns are unjustified.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not claim that hair mineral analysis is an accepted medical technique. I believe however, that it is conceivable that it will some day be an accepted medical technique.  Although I don't address this in the article, I personally believe that it is very likely that medicine will eventually adopt hair mineral analysis for further diagnostic work.  Before we start discussing the scope of mediation and all that, I'd ask that you read the page as I just left it; you'll see where I am coming from.  If you want to make improvements feel free.--Alterrabe 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slipped disc
When will this get settled? - Fyslee 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be patient. WP:AfDs normally last 5-7 days. Although I don't fully agree with the logic, Wikipedia concensus seems to be that it would only be deleted before replacing the redirect if it contains clearly incorrect information, and that the redirect would only be protected if its reverted after the AfD finds that the redirect should be there.  If the result of the AfD is "redirect", I'll watch it, and protect if necessary.   (As a participating admin, I may not close the AfD, but I feel that I can enforce protection if agreed to by the AfD.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. As I have written, I am not insistant that the history be deleted, as long as the redirect is restored and respected. BTW, the entire talk pages from both articles that were replaced by the new one are archived there. -- Fyslee 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gabriel graph
I have created that article today. I do not know if article on similar topic already exist but I am not able to find such an article. Can you please take a quick look at it. best! --- ALM 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Warning: I'm not Arthur, but I expect you don't mind my answering first.) This might be the same as Delaunay triangulation. Where did you find the name "Gabriel graph"? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not the same concept; the Delaunay triangulation involves circumcircles of triangles, and this concept involves "circumcircles" of segments of the graph. However, I, too, would like to know where the name came from, and what paper or web site it may have appeared in.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed Delaunay triangulation are totally different. Check Google search and some website are, and  (last two help in drawing them too). I have not read any paper as yet but there are many papers written on them. The reason I got interested in them are because they have some applications in Wireless Sensor Networks. One can use them to find paths which are more energy efficient (consume lesser energy). I have to read more about them today and might update the article later. However, it will be great if you guys can also improve it. regards, --- ALM 11:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i² = -1 vs. i = sqrt{-1}
In list of numbers you very recently reverted an edit regarding a very short reference to the imaginary unit $$i$$. It used to say $$i = \sqrt{-1}$$ and I corrected it to $$i^{2} = -1$$. You reverted it, but I do not understand why.

Both imaginary unit and square root define $$i^{2} = -1$$. The latter article uses that definition to define the complex square root. Not the other way around!

Please revert it back to the usual definition $$i^{2} = -1$$. Qevlarr 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. $$x^2 = -1$$ has solutions $$x=\pm i$$m so $$i^2 = -1$$ does not uniquely identify i.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither does $$i=\sqrt{-1}$$.--80.136.182.36 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does if you take the convention that the principal value of the square root takes a postive imaginary part. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about a positive imaginary part already requires the choice you are trying to avoid. In any case you have to choose one solution of $$x^2=-1$$ and this chosen solution is called i. You can't choose &minus;i.--80.136.182.36 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought Qevlarr 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thomas/Finney Calculus and Analytical Geometry defines i as $$i=\sqrt{-1}$$ (see p.A-48 7th edition). However Kreyszig Advanced Engineering Mathematics has $$i^{2} = -1$$ (see p.721 6th edition).  Swokowski Calculus with Analytic Geometry states Since $$i^{2} = -1$$, we sometimes use the symbol $$\sqrt{-1}$$ in place of i (see p.986 2nd edition).  It would seem that either way is "correct" however in my engineering we always used $$i=\sqrt{-1}$$.  Perhaps other disciplines have different practises?? Shot info 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Despotism or simple vandalism?
It's not that you act like some sort of higher authority, but you do that without any decent discussion, I'm not sure if these are the qualities of tyrant or vandal. Perhaps both? This article deals with only one topic? Who decides that this topic is conspiracy, do you have alternative (reputable!) hypothesis about collapse of building 7? Lovelight 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "this article"? 9/11 conspiracy theories deals with conspiracy theories, credible or not.  911ct refers to conspiracy theories, credible or not; it's just that the only single conspiracy theory which has a Wikipedia article is Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center.  If you want to write an article about "death ray" or "hologram" theories, based on WP:RS, go ahead.  And the reputable hypothesis about building 7 is that the core was damaged by debris from the twin towers, and, given that steel is a good conductor of heat, softened throughout its length simultaneously, leaving the shell without support.  I don't have a reference for this, but any good structural engineer could confirm that it would work that way.  If you want to do the experiment yourself, (a la Feynman and the Rogers Commission) construct a model building with a zinc core.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fed up with structural engineers, magna cum nada. We may only hope that final appendix will find some sort of reference for simultaneous core breach you've just described. Guess I'll need to pursue this a bit further…Lovelight 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur it's not about those prominent people or conspiracy theories. It's about the title and the content of the template. You cannot push that singular template/article into conspiracy theories; it's a hypothesis, there is nothing on the other side. You cannot have a coin, if it doesn’t have two faces. You cannot make the elephant-fly. We cannot just label such (serious) hypothesis, its POV. Do tell, why is this still up and running? If you won't to call it conspiracy theories (as in plural), I'd suggest you write "death rays" article and find some sources for it, or find some other alternative. Of course if you try to expand it with something that would be in line with derogatory and libelous connotations of the term "conspiracy", we are back at the point one. You were perfectly clear yesterday; let me remind you of your own words: "It appears I misunderstood you. Nuclear, gave a plausible explanation that you wanted to create a 9/11 controlled demolition template. That may be a worthy cause…"; The only theory with a Wikipedia article is the controlled demolition theory."; The template is perfectly fine… as reduced by removing other entries in the controlled demolition (hypothesis) form.". Why are you so persistent in pursuing that particular POV? Lovelight 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other conspiracy theories than controlled demolition, although we don't have articles on them, and there are theorists about whom we do have articles who believe in other theories. We probably should have the template in the inclusive form, as well as the controlled demolition template; however none of the drafts at 911ct would be acceptable as a CD template, because they include theorists who do not accept controlled demolition.
 * In other words, I understand what you want in a template, but I'm asserting that the inclusive template makes perfectly good sense. I don't see why you want to damage the inclusive template in order to construct a CD template; why not construct your own template?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no other hypothesis for fall of building 7, so I'm interested what is your basis to call it conspiracy? Because it's only one, and only plausible? This is encyclopedia, people read this stuff a lot these days, and we have no right whatsoever to form opinions. You are violating NPOV, and you are "distributing" template with only one subject calling it conspiracy theories (plural). As for your suggestion, I'm fine with your template, it matches mine perfectly, and title is far better than yours;). Would you be so kind and borrow? Then will stick all three identical templates, all of them with different labels and examine global reactions. Just lovely. Lovelight 01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still multiple hypotheses for WTC7, including our article, which states:

The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south facade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south facade. A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you include that and insist to call the template "conspiracy theories" I won't mind at all:). But seriously, that excerpt could hardly be called hypothesis, since its states… all sorts of things without explaining anything. Its really not about the structure at all, it's about the speed of collapse. But never mind that, if you would take a breath and took a calm look at all this you'd see the middle ground. Or NPOV, as we call it here. I've seen your suggestion, if you won't to pursue such strange "trinity" so be it. However, I would kindly ask once more, if you would simply rename current template, I'm sure you are the one who can easily trim it and form(ulate) it without causing more mess. You've repeatedly stated that it’s nothing but a good and valid tool. Not to point out, that you are still "distributing" it under name which is clearly disputed, even by yourself. So let's make clear what is clear and use this for what it is. Lovelight 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you feel that a template with only one theory should be named for that theory, even if supporters of other theories are listed. Fine.  I found another theory for you.  Have fun.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vaya Con Dios to your theory;)… we did have fun, haven’t we? Lovelight 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disgrace for mathematicians?
Dear Arthur, please see what your friend Alan does here, also in PlanetMath and various forums like ft-sucks.com under the nickname "Mr.Rusty". I guess you might wish to support him here, where I have again requested his ban from Wikipedia. I think this guy is a disgrace for mathematicians, but in case you want to support him, feel free to do so. I am not surprized by his racist posts, I am afraid what his students can learn from him. Danko Georgiev MD 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleshlight
What's up with you changing the Fleshlight page every hour? If people wanna contribute, let them contribute.

If you can't stand that, get the fuck out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.229.206 (talk • contribs) 15:16, July 26, 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only reverted 3 edits in Fleshlight, two of which were clearly linkspam, and the other probably linkspam, in the past month. I don't know why you think it's "every hour".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Busy lately?
I don't suppose you could cut me some slack there Art? Gregbard 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I just don't see those two specific formal languages as notable.  Perhaps they deserve mention in formal language or formal proof.  Or perhaps you could userfy them, rather than leave them as up for deletion?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)\
 * First of all, the notability criterion is destroying the intellectual integrity of the wikipedia. Second, PQ at least is notable for its inclusion in the popular Gödel Escher Bach. The need for FS (logic) was demonstrated at Talk:Theorem. I would like to A) use this and other articles as a means to straighten out many redlinked concepts (see there are a few in there), B) work from the bottom up to some degree. FS is a good start from that perspective.


 * Lastly, if FS and PQ are not notable, please just get familiar with them. Gregbard 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The need for the models was (loosely) indicated (but not demonstrated) at Talk:Theorem, but I think the "models" belong in the formal theory article, rather than anywhere near theorem. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thinking it over, your argument that that the misnamed FS and PQ are relevant to theorem was rejected. Perhaps they should be merged into formal language?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never brought up PQ in the discussion about theorem. If you do not understand that the existence of the FS language (heretofore unknown to the authors of theorem), made a relevant point about the fundamental nature of what a theorem is; and, that the point was incorporated into the article, then I don't know what else to tell you.


 * I'm all for integration, but I wonder about just what your idea is that you are integrating. I.e., I don't think you guys "get" what FS means if you are still hemming and hawing about it being relevant to logic, etcetera. Gregbard 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are clearly not relevant to logic except in regard syntax and semantics of formal grammars. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to be convinced, but I cannot see it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FS is an uninterpreted language and a goal of logic is to deal with the syntax of statements/formulae/etc without regard for the interpretations. Therefore it is relevant. It clearly is relevant in my view. I don't think they cluttered up either an elementary logic book, or a class in Symbolic Logic with a lot of non-notable and irrelevant material as they have done in my case. Furthermore, my use of FS in the theorem discussion (which prompted changes to the article) does in fact show that it is useful, and relevant. Be well, Gregbard 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement about "a goal of logic" could only refer to philosophical logic as opposed to mathematical logic. I don't know much about philosophical logic, but I can assure you that nothing in the article relates to mathematical logicl.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the world of logic doesn't end with mathematical logic. Gregbard 06:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A little harsh
I'd say Parker is notable. He is the author of one of the best selling books on logic in the country.

Gregbard 07:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It's not on amazon.com.  It's not in the Library of Congress catalog.  Where is it?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

try this Gregbard 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC) oh never mind.
 * Exactly. It's not logic, it's rhetoric.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to just go ahead and inform you that you are incorrect and leave it at that. Be well. Gregbard 07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From m-w.com, definition 1b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion.  Seems to fit.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily, my just telling you that you are incorrect would suffice. So what's up? I'm getting an asshole vibe at this point. Richard B. Parker, along with Brooke N. Moore is the author of one of (if not 'the') best selling logic book in the country. He published a response to Bradley's Paradox. He teaches Logic in the Philosophy department of CSUC and has for many years. Gregbard 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Two of the eight reviews (of one of the editions) at amazon.com state that it isn't a logic book.  It does appear to be a best-seller, though.  (And "Bradley's Paradox", if it were interesting, might have an article on Wikipedia.  I can't find a reference which stays what it might actually be, but it appears to be a paradox of meta-logic which can best be eliminated by denying the existence of discrete, countable, concepts.  It also appears to have been resolved by Frege around 1915.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think Bradley's paradox is important, you could probably write an article on it, using Parker's books and/or papers (if published) as a reference. (Let me know, and I'll look at it.  I doubt I could assert it as unimportant unless I've guessed correctly what it is.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at consensus-building
In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I just added a fourth reversion by User:Frikkers on Boerboel. VanTucky (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the birthday on May 12th, 1975 I put up?
Are you in charge of 5/12/75? Isn't wiki for everyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.176.70 (talk • contribs) 01:21, July 31, 2007 (UTC)
 * We only list birthdays of people who have Wikipedia articles. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you said 1973, there. Is it '73 or '75?  Is there a source which specifies it?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Prisonplanet
Looks like you're on their bad boy list now as well. See the main article on the front page of prisonplanet.com as well about Wikipedia.  MortonDevonshire  Yo   · 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did anything relevant to that article(?). Oh, well.  Concur that all links to prisonplanet.com need to be removed as an attack site....  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that posting with a real name and real (although not primary) E-mail address might lend my comments some credibility. I guess not.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we will do better to remove them because they are not reliable sources for hardly anything. verifiability is a core policy. People disagree about exactly what are attack sites, and how they should be handled. I think there are other sites too: infowars.com, prisonplanet.tv, and jonesreport.com. Except in a few cases, links to these should be removed because they are not reliable sources. Not surprisingly, the material they support may be inaccurate as well. And of course there are special problems if living people are involved. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we go about getting prisonplanet.com placed on our Wiki blacklist?   MortonDevonshire  Yo   · 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Links here: m:Talk:Spam blacklist and m:Spam blacklist/About. Tom Harrison Talk 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Did a quick search just in main namespace, there are actually more infowars links than prisonplanet links. Only a couple of jonesreport hits. These guys are like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their attempts to fight "censorship" of their views will result in a complete blacklisting of their websites. They're not all that swift, are they? - Crockspot 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
You used the admin rollback on me therefor you called me a vandal.

How was my edit vandalism? I am not a vandal. I want a reason as to why you reverted me. And I'll say in advance that I have no agenda so don't say "because you're a no good POV Pusher." &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's blanking of sourced, relevant information. That's not precisely vandalism, but it's something that can be reverted on sight without further comment.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
I'd prefer if you've talked with me rather than ignoring me and treating me like nothing. I already explained why I'm removed the sourced material b(because it isn't reliable) and you REFUSE to listen to me. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * j911Studies and 911Truth are clearly not reliable except, possibly in regard the specific organizations. To the extent that this article is not about those specific organizations, they are unusable.  But I'm willing to let that go, as long as equally usable debunking references are listed.  (In fact, 911Truth may qualify as an attack site, and would then be unusable even in an article about the organization itself.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight. If one page on GeoCities says "I disagree with 9/11 Truth" it's reliable? &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits at Neanderthal
Please stop with the intentional ignorance.... your Quote:"Doesn't appear to be from German"... There is a whole section on its German origins at the article... I'm going to show you a fair and hard-to-miss-unless-you-are-doing-it-intentionally sample from that section: "The term Neanderthal Man was coined in 1863 by Anglo-Irish anatomist William King. Neanderthal is now spelled two ways: the spelling of the German word Thal, meaning "valley or dale", was changed to Tal in 1901, but the former spelling is often retained in English and always in scientific names, while the modern spelling is used in German.

The Neanderthal or "Neander Valley" was named after theologian Joachim Neander, who lived nearby in Düsseldorf in the late seventeenth century.

''The original German pronunciation (regardless of spelling) is with the sound /t/. (See German phonology.) When used in English, the term is usually anglicised to /θ/ (as in thin), though speakers more familiar with German use /t/.''" Please stop intentionally provoking other users and ignorantly dismissing their contributions as "vandalism", or "incorrect." 172.191.100.66 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted myself as the next entry. Although most of your "from German" edits were clearly incorrect, this one was correct.  Please talk to other editors if they are reverting your entries.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As for words borrowed from German:

172.191.100.66 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Check the reference, and look at the history on that article, and on the German wikipedia article.
 * 2) For good measure, lets delete all mentions of the German language since you are so anti-German.
 * 3) german.about.com is not "uncredited borrowings from Wikipedia and other Wikis", but about.com, please show me how "mostly" it is such.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply but,
If contributing to Wikipedia was illegal there would not be a "edit this page" tab. Please stop removing appropriate external links from Wikipedia, as you did to September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered censorship and Wikipedia is a vehicle for curiosity and discussion. Since Wikipedia uses history logs, subtraction of links from Wikipedia will not alter the facts. If you continue censoring, the magic that made contributing to Wikipedia fun, will be lost forever. — Darts777 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion but,
Is vandalize newspeak for contribute? What version of the newspeak dictionary do you use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darts777 (talk • contribs)

Now he's warning other editors. They must be running a seminar over at prisonplanet on how to cause maximum disruption for the longest amount of time. - Crockspot 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The link is not particularly good, and probably edited, and the change in "Patrick" is clearly vandalism. As for warnings, that's just weird.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I already reported this joker to AIV. I don't have your patience Art. :)- Crockspot 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning but,
Is there a list of what the party allows to be edited? Because if not, the whole page should be read-only protected, to prevent these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darts777 (talk • contribs)
 * Constructive edits are welcome. Name vandalism, links to additional (and edited) videos of the buildings, and other inappropriate information are not.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 'o god of Wikipedia, your list was very educational!
Have a nice day. Darts777 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change (2007 film)
You are repeatedly deleting material from this reliable source - http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2007/07/27/jprowe0727.html. Please stop vandalising the article. Hereward77 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are deleting this reliable source - http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2007/07/31/jprowe07306.html . Could you rewrite to have both?  (And it may be important if the 07-31 source contradicts the 07-27 source.)  It's partially my fault, as I didn't see the difference, and assumed you were just moving sources around, adding material which was not in the source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation was unnecessary as it is already cited after the following sentence. The only contradiction is that the first source gives Rowe's side of the story. Thanks. Hereward77 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The version of 22:36 is acceptable to me. It has both the "official" claim and Rowe's claim properly sourced.  Your previous attempts did not, nor did my attempts prior to the last one.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Steven Jones
Hi Arthur!

You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed.

The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy):

On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: Steven,

Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted.

Cordially,

David

On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote:

Hello, David and Peter --

About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere?

This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again.

Thanks, Steven J

Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying?

You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Mark Patterson 434-326-0180 Mark@MarkCentury.com


 * If the book states it's "peer-reviewed", or the publisher (if a reputable publisher) says it's peer-reviewed, we may include that, unless there is notable opinion to the contrary. Personal correspondence from the authors fail WP:RS (or whatever the current location of that policy is).  Personal correspondence from the editor fails WP:V.  If the editor publically says it's peer-reviewed, that's almost enough for some comment on peer-review.
 * As, at least I, find it improbable that the book really is "peer-reviewed", we need some source we can WP:ATT. You'll note that none of us have (recently, anyway) tried to include "non-peer-reviewed" in the description of the book, although, I, at least, believe that to be the case.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Salvnaut=MarkCentury? Time for a WP:RFCU?   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought it was the anon I was reverting on controlled demolition hypothesis and building implosion.  I need to keep my reverts of nonsense straight.  Salvnaut could have been the anon, but I don't think he's MarkCentury.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but I find it very strange that SalvNaut came around and started performing reversions right after Mark got blocked.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deutsche [Lehnwort im]-->[Loanwords in] English
(EDIT: Oh, ok i understand some of your edits, not the following though.) Then if we are going to rename Machpolitik to Power Politics, lets rename Realpolitik to Real politics/Realistic Politics... The article was created by an IP(65.129.4.139) in 2003 anyways, which is something to take into account since now IPs are not allowed to create articles, and IPs anyway are prone to plainly just adding inaccurate information. Machtpolitik is a german loanword, and its still used, i say like Realpolitik(which was not created by an IP), to move Power politics to Machpolitik. because with the term power poliotics it could be coined by different meanings other than the one we mean. like say.... a video game could be named "POWER POLITICS" just for dramatic weight, and so forth,

Article on dictionary.com clearly showes Machpolitik and has no entry for "power politics", "power politic", etc.

''Machtpolitik
 * n. `power politics`''



or from this definition in a book called German English Words at Google Books Machtpolitik "power politics": international diplomacy in which each ... The English term power politics is a loan translation of Machtpolitik. Also, im not sure if you know this, but Loanword is ironically itself a borrowed word (a loanword) from German. 172.191.100.66 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Loan translation" is not the same as "loanword". As for which "politik" words are used in English, m-w.com reports:
 * "power politics" – politics based primarily on the use of power (as military and economic strength) as a coercive force rather than on ethical precepts
 * "machtpolitik" only in the paid version
 * "realpolitik" – politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives
 * This suggests that "realpolitik" is a borrowed word which is actually used in English, while "machtpolitik" is not. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Loan translation=Calquex (obviously a loanword), and i was not understanding that concept until i saw the article on Calque. But still, it doesnt even say anything for Machtpolitik except "Buy our FULL VERSION NOW!"... and it was originally machtpolitik and i, albeit probably hopelessly, still think it should be moved to it with strong emphasis that Machtpolitik has since been translated into English as "Power Politics," like Realpolitik.172.191.100.66 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Spitz
I didnt really add anything that needs any sources... I was reverting a vandal IP who deleted material without explanation. 172.191.100.66 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Cheque"
The article "Cheque" was originally at Check, and by checking the history you clearly see the earliest edit was a vandal moving it to Cheque to further his point-of-view. (History list) (actual edit on which it was moved) 172.191.100.66 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably true. Unfortunatly, there was a ruling in a similar article to the effect that keeping a "stable version" is more important than following Wikipedia naming guideline in general (so, even if the name should be check, that it's been at cheque for a few years dominates.)  Perhaps it was cat flap.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at the Quackery article
I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. I figured you might be interested since you were involved with the original discussion on this section. Elhector 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

2029 Anniversaries
I'm not trying to be rude, but why did you get rid of all the anniversaries on the 2029 page. Other future years have anniversaries, why can't this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.236.27 (talk • contribs)
 * I believe the current consensus is that no anniversaries should be listed unless a specific celebration/memorial is planned. I only watch a few of the year articles, so I'm only attempting to maintain that in those articles.  Perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may explain why some articles have anniversaries but not others.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not supporting the project
When I saw that you had signed up tp support the logical operator project, I was pretty happy to see some support. Now I am wondering about the different "good faith" interpretations of "support." If the bot does not tag those articles the work is going to fall on my shoulders, because no one else is going to do it (as we have seen). If the bot is stopped for good, that's potentially thousands of articles that I will have to tag all by myself. Furthermore, there really is a substantial component of an organized Wikiproject which no one will be able work on without the assessment tags. Do you understand that I am justified in being very upset with you and the rest of the math cabal? You are hurting the Wikipedia more than you are helping with these actions. This latest move by yourself, and zivka is a "no compromise" strategy. You can see that I am trying to achieve a compromise here. So what are you going to do to help the project move forward? Not tagging at all is not an option. Making me do it manually because you guys are territorial on Wikipedia is just disgusting.

I am going to submit whatever list consists of the original minus any category that people have communicated that they don't want (as stated). There is no better compromise for you people. I will submit it with a good faith intention, and having done more than I needed for due process. Gregbard 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having reconsidered, I think we need to establish a list, and then establish consensus that it should be used. But, not tagging articles whict aren't related to the project, whether or not in related categories, is always an option.  "Due process" would require deleting all the bot-added tags and starting over.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agreed with you up until that last sentence. Respecting due process would mean that you, Zvka, and the rest accept that you missed your well publicized and more than sufficiently lengthy opportunity to have input into the process. I am not the only one who was waiting for this. The fact that we are discussing it again means that due process means nothing unless it benefits a few complainer's own postiton. It seems to me that they can do the tedious work of removing the tags just as easily as myself putting on tags. The difference is that I went through the process from the start. Gregbard 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't agree that discussion only in (a subpage of) WikiProject Logic is adequate notice for something that would have tagged over 5000 talk pages. I don't know if you should have notified WikiProject Mathematics, but you probably should have put a notice in the Village Pump (which I probably wouldn't have seen).
 * As a practical matter, I think the agreed untagging would require then retagging using the reduced list of categories, but including the categories already tagged, so it might be simpler just to untag all and start over. I guess we'll have to leave that decision to the bot operators.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I want you to think about what would happen if we operated on that "principle" all the time. Due process means something. You can find new venues for announcement all day long. If after the whole thing is said and done and there are still complainers, the thing that is done in moral society, is move on without them, and invite their increase participation the next time. Otherwise anyone can hold any group hostage. Some people complain no matter what. At some point the group must be able to move forward. Gregbard 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm still shooting for August 11, so if you guys feel strongly about excluding categories, you should demonstrate that by then, or cry about it later (not to be mean, but at some point it really has to be that way). Gregbard 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that's just wrong. The group is Wikipedia, not WikiProject Logic.  And I'd have to say that consensus as to this list was not obtained on WikiProject Logic, as the notification was on a subpage.  Wikipedia operates on a consensus, not "do it and wait to see if someone objects".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The notice was in three places including the portal page which gets general readership. I have seen this situation before in the use of due process. Would you believe that the notice was adequate if the consequences were to your liking? Be honest. I think we have also forgotten the point that these tags are on talk pages. There is no reason to object to them at all. WikiProjects have not traditionally asked permission from others to include a page in their project. This phenomenon is entirely a product of territorialism that has no place here. Gregbard 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't watch the logic portal. (In fact, I'm not sure I understand what a Portal is supposed to be.)  My mistake.  However, there are some changes to articles and templates which I agree are accurate, but have reverted because they were inadequately sourced, so I would like to think I would object on the grounds of inadequate notice even if "consequences were to" my "liking".  I've also deleted an AfD which was piggybacked on one of mine, even though I thought the article should have been deleted.  (Actually, that was PQ (logic), so you might have noticed.  I created the AfD on FS (logic).) You may draw your own conclusions.
 * As for your assertion that WikiProjects don't ask permission to include pages in their projects, that's true. It's also true that, as many of the larger categories clearly do not fall within the scope of the project, WikiProject Mathematics would probably have "authorized" (suggested, whatever the appropriate term is) using a bot to remove some of the categories from the project.  I don't understand philosophical logic (or whatever non-mathematical logic is called); in suggesting some of the categories, you've established that you don't understand what those categories are about.  This suggests, as some have done in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Logic, that you should have placed a notice on the talk pages of the categories.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't watch the logic portal." It seems you do not understand due process. It's not about YOU. As far as the community is concerned there has been more than adequate due process. Your assertion that I should have tagged 100 categories is an an unreasonable expectation. It would have defeated the purpose of using a bot. This is a demand for special treatment beyond what is necessary, or appropriate. This is especially true, given the nature of talk pages and project tags. This whole mess is a product of unnecessary, unhelpful, territorialism. Gregbard 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't see that exclusion list growing at all.


 * Well, you should (in that sense) requested a bot to tag the 100 categories (actually category talk pages) for possible tagging into the WikiProject, rather than just tagging them. (In fact, I'm almost certain there was an option for the bot you requested add the pages in the category to do so.)  Alternatively, you could edit your .js file to include a button to include the text at the bottom of the talk page of the page in question, and then right-click each of the categories to open it in a new window, and click that button.  A little setup work, but it would make it clear who was proposing the measure.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What can I say? I agree with this just fine. I had no idea there were these options. I certainly have no aversion or lack of patience to go through such a process. However, I still think that it is overkill. It has not proven to be necessary up to this point for any other groups. I am starting to believe it is a cultural thing among mathematicians. I still see no reason we can't move forward on a de-tagging, and a tagging list by 11 August. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. Gregbard 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

$$\leftarrow$$I just have a comment for Greg. All of the math project tags have, to my knowledge, been added manually by members of the project(tedious yes, but most of our rated articles have rating field importance and a comment...something a bot cannot do). Why don't you tag the key articles automatically and leave the questionable ones for the editors to add later as they encounter them.--Cronholm144 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, let me know what categories you think should be left out, and we'll proceed on 11 Aug as planned. Gregbard 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote stacking
I concur, which is why I quickly recanted. Djma12 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth vs. Conspiracy
There is no one name for the group of conspirators who challenge the truth behind 9/11. The article's title was misleading and inaccurate, and I will redo the page the next chance I get until you give me a valid reason for keeping it at truth.

Alex. --Alegoo92 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "911 Conspiracy Movement" is just wrong; nobody calls it that. You can propose the article for deletion, but renaming it to a name which nobody uses violates WP:NAME.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT, and Lake Forest
First of all, thanks for noticing the page moves I made to the two Lake Forest town articles -- as I said in the edit summary, I made them to generate attention and discussion, and I appreciated yours as much as the other discussion. Also, I certainly don't have any objection to your reversion of the moves; they were based on a proposal, and one that, as I expected, does have some folks who object to it, so it's right for the articles to remain at their old names until/unless the proposal gains consensus.

However, there was one comment you made that I am confused by. You said that, "If he hadn't propagated the double redirects, I would have considered it "good faith"". What did you mean by that? I did change the targets of the pages that redirected to the (now a redirect) old name, because otherwise they would be double redirects, which would make it harder for visitors to find the page. I see how this means there are more edits needed to revert the move -- is that what you objected to? If so, I apologize, and if you haven't reverted the redirects, I'll certainly do that myself, now. My intention in snapping the redirects was both to generate more edit summaries in the hopes of gathering more attention, and to avoid broken double redirects that could confuse users. I look forward to your further explanation of what about my snapping the redirects you objected to. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would have been better if you'd left the double-redirects broken, as it was a test proposal, although reasonable people could differ on that. Your edit summaries for the double-redirect term confused me.  By the way, is "snap" a tool or script you use?  In context, the term is unfamiliar to me.  I could always use tools, even if I haven't applied for AWB access.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. "snap" is a metaphor from rubber bands -- when you have one thing pointing to another thing pointing to a third thing, "snapping" means changing the things to point directly.  If it's not in Glossery(sorry about the spelling), it should be. Have to run, may say more later. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of discussion
Please do not remove discussions from article talk pages like you did to Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Your reverts have been reverted as vandalism and will be reported as such if you continue. 196.207.32.37 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about this. I did not intend to get you into trouble as this does seem to be a genuine misunderstanding which is partly my fault. I will try to give better explanations in the future but do want to urge you not to use words like forgery and fabrication which has legal connotations and tends to push some buttons. ;) I don't really edit that much and this IS a shared IP, shared as in used by a number of people all at the same time. 196.207.32.37 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy's talkpage
Hi, Arthur. Since you've told DreamGuy that people can't be banned from his page "by him alone", I'm doing it; I'm writing to IPSOS to tell him he doesn't get to post on DG's page anymore, and strongly suggesting to Dicklyon also that he should desist. No matter how riled-up you are against DreamGuy, I'm sure you don't mean to condone outright trolling and provocation on his page. And what, if not trolling, is it to post those crap templates on a long-time contributor... ?. With "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia"... ? That's never a good faith warning. It's more like poking with a stick at an irascible editor in the hope of getting him to say something blockable. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
 * And, actually, it's been long established that people can tell people to stop posting to their talk pages if they are doing nothing that has any possible value to the encyclopedia and those who violate it are causing harassment. I would consider Arthur Rubin's edits as well to fall well within that standard, as his very first communication with me was an over the top aggressive threat to block for the simple matter of not doing what he wanted to do on an article he was edit warring and eventually lost on. All of his communications since then, other than a half-hearted apology for some tiny fraction of his behavior has been nothing but more of the same. As he has made it clear that nothing he has to tell me on my talk page (including the bogus claim that I can't ban people from it) is any real attempt to improve the encyclopedia and is solely to continue his personal conflict, he is blocked from my page as well. Admins don't get any special exemptions from the rules against harassment, and in fact they out of anyone should not be doing it in the first place, so Arthur here doesn't get off free either. DreamGuy 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one who has committed abuse is DreamGuy, but he's already been told, so there's no point in telling him again. And I've never been blocked.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, DreamGuy removed one of his posts, and it was restored by 66.82.9.79, who seems to be following him around, harassing him and trolling, so I removed it again. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well. I did try to write you a reasonable message in a reasonable tone, Arthur. I'm sorry if I didn't succeed. I was hoping you'd see your way to responding to me more... specifically, somehow. You really don't think it abusive to repeatedly slap those dumb-ass newbie templates on DG's page? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, actually, DreamGuy acts like a newbie in regard ignoring clear WP:CONSENSUS when he claims to think it violates policy, guidelines (such as the WP:MoS) when he thinks it disagrees with his view, and generally ignoring the opinions of others. I tend to agree that uw-3RR needs some more work, but the other templates I've placed on his talk page describe, in as polite a way as reasonable, what he's actually doing, and asks him to stop doing it.  I've reverted the reinsertion of warnings and polite requests from his talk page after he's deleted them, as he's certainly allowed to do it, under WP:USER, as unwise as it may be. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cathcart AfD
 the primary proponent (here) has been unable to produce a WP:RS, in spite of claimed knowledge of the field. - I had never intended to contribute to Cathcart's article, before the political ambush AfD, much less this past week. More discussion and guidance to specific policies concerning PhD theses is requested for an unusual case, where the *summary material* (Cochrane Collection reviews) is considered extensively reviewed and reliable, the author is considered reliable, but the author's more detailed underlying material presented in the thesis isn't(?) guidance request, 1st added paragraph, re Hemila's 2nd PhD. Here I think the various review conditions (Cochrane, subsequent public comment, PhD review in a known sensitive topic area) with a reliable author are substantial. Thanks.--TheNautilus 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "the primary proponent" was supposed to be you. IMHO, a Ph.D. thesis falls under our self-published guidelines, so it would only be reliable if the person, is, at the time of publication, a recognized expert in the field.  This is unlikely in the case of a Ph.D. thesis, but not logically impossible.  The meta-analysis was separately published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is considered a reliable source.
 * I have more AfD edits than Pierre or Lumos3 at that point; Lumos3 and I each had one previous minor edit. Hemila, already MD+PhD and associate professor, has been a Cochrane reviewer for Vitamin C & respiratory diseases from some time in the 1990's and looks like the heavy lift author by 2004, given the amazing overlap between his 2006 thesis (original work requirements?) and the previous Cochrane review even though Douglas was listed first. Hemila is first listed in 2007 for the Cochrane review for C and pneumonia. Simply, I consider the (University reviewed) wealth of detail in Hemila's 2006 thesis (2nd PhD) superior and more up to date, again Cochrane vetted in part by overlaps with Hemila, Louhiala (2007, C + pneumonia, favorable).  I haven't had a chance to go over any free version of Douglas, Hemila (2007, C + colds, again), looks pretty similar on summary (My primary criticism is that their negative conclusions are not clearly demarcated in press reports as effectively terminating at 4 to 6 g/day for *general* populations, often without mentioning that substantial subpopulations *are* recognized as measurably benefiting at 1-6 gram/day or another mainstream test at 8 oral grams per day (not properly divided) with some positive indications according Hemila, or being well below Cathcart's B-T "mega-macro" ranges, 20-200+ oral grams per day.)--TheNautilus 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of your admin power at Photoshopping
This edit is a particularly blatant abuse of your admin powers. Admin powers are not supposed to be used to assist your side in edit wars. I know you simply have not followed that policy, as you abused your powers in the past to do a block that was motivated out of spite instead of any real reason, but you'd think by now that you'd start to worry about trying to play straight. Please undo your edit before someone else is forced to undo it for you. DreamGuy 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I also think it would be better if you didn't write on my talk page, as long as I am not allowed to comment on your egregious errors on your talk page.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I think he's right; I was appalled, too. You've given him one more distraction to pick on.  And your comment suggests that his incivility is rubbing off on you.  I recommend you unprotect the page and not use any admin powers in any dispute in which you are involved. Dicklyon 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't protect the page, and wouldn't have, as I don't think the edit warring had gotten to the point where the 3 or 4 main contributors couldn't keep his erroneous edits in check. However, I'm not going to let an edit in place which could leave Wikipedia subject to trademark violation lawsuits.  I think reverting to the last non-erroneous edit from DreamGuy may be a reasonable compromise.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have mis-remembered the sequence. Still, you should probably ask the guy who protected it to decide what to do. Dicklyon 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I now see that it was User:Nihiltres who edited, protected, and reverted. He should have just picked one role, too; editor or admin, but not both.  Even when he realized his error and reverted he left evidence of bias for DreamGuy to use as a distraction.  It's too bad, because all these little things just give him something to use to avoid facing his conduct problems.  Oh, well.  Dicklyon 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil Rizzuto
I haven't found a source that specified time of death. However, I've found a lot of sources that stated "late Monday night" and more recent ones stating he died on Tuesday. In my mind, neither statement is contradictory. The Major League Baseball website lists his date of death as the 14th. I've changed the death date and cited it accordingly. As we both know, death dates are often incorrect early on. If you've got a better source, please revise the death date – and include the source. Cheers Rklawton 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of the Press is Necessary for a Democracy to Avoid Tyranny
Dear Arthur Rubin:

Our founding fathers knew implicitly that power corrupts and they gave us protection from unwarranted searches and they gave us freedom of speech to serve as a counterweight to tyranny..

If I were you, I would think very carefully about this quote because it relates to the type of country that your grandchildren may well live in if you and I do not take steps to protect our freedoms today:

"AN EVIL EXISTS THAT THREATENS EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THIS GREAT NATION. WE MUST TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT OUR DOMESTIC SECURITY PROTECTS OUR HOMELAND." --- Adolf Hitler

Yes, Arthur, this quote was not said by President Bush-- it was said by Hitler, in an attempt to use fear to manipulate and control... He later forged a dictatorship out of a free election using the Reichstag as an excuse.

Please don't think it can't happen here.. because it can when people suppress free information and when they won't seek the truth..

This is the mindset that your have been sold-- You are an intelligent person-- don't buy it.

Wake up. Think about it... These are the people who will turn against YOU first-- once they have used you as a spinmeister..

"Homeland" security searched my checked baggage at Long Beach a few weeks ago-- Why? I am a 51 year old housewife and former professor-- and they have me on their watchlist.... This is what Hitler did to his citizens, using fear as the excuse. He later started killing them...

No one thought it could happen in Germany and it did. Just look at the history of the Bush family and their deep post wwII connections to IG Farben and Nazi flight capital--- and you will see the truth of what I am saying... (google John Buchannan-- you will see that he was arrested for his research-- it is happening here...)

God bless you and I hope He opens your eyes before it is too late for our precious nation.

Freyfaxi 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Article
You reverted my edit, citing the talk page, without actually having contributed anything to the talk page. Please refrain from this antisocial behaviour, or alternatively you could go to the talk page and become the first person to actually adress my arguments. Damburger 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page is clear. Terrorist is used by all reliable sources.  If you could find a source that said that it wasn't a terrorist act (even among those who say it was committed by agents of the US Government), then we would have to add a caveat.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page is obviously not clear, because you have TOTALLY missed the point of my objection. Either participate properly to the talk page, or kindly stay away from the article. Damburger 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the other editors commenting on the talk page see your point, either. What is it?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it over to the relevant talk page please. And you are mistaken about 'none' of the editors there failing to see my point. Damburger 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Name one who sees your point, then. I don't see the need to say "I concur with the above clear consensus" on the talk page in order to act on it in the article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rklawton and Melsaran clearly do. Are we even reading the same talk page? Damburger 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some have objected to "Islamic terrorists", but I see no objection to "terrorist" in the talk page, other than yours. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't read the page. Goodbye. Damburger 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They only posted less than an hour ago. Consensus is still that you're wrong, but, if it really is policy (although I don't agree that it is), you may have a point.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, it's a guideline. Guidelines may have exceptions, and this is clearly a good candidate for an exception.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've gone from "there is nobody agreeing with you on that page" to "the consensus is still against you". Now suddenly policies (which are treated as such elsewhere) are guidelines? Perhaps we should take this up on the 9/11 talk page where it belongs? Damburger 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of them posted in the previous hour, and the MoS is not policy. This one, IMHO, does not reflect policy.  It certainly doesn't reflect any policy mentioned on the talk page at that time.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of External Links section from WTC collapse article
You have blanked a clearly legitimate section of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article and gave no good reason. This is a warning. If you vandalize anymore 9/11 Truth articles I will inform the administrator intervention against vandalism list of your activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.62.150 (talk • contribs)
 * You are in no position to complain. You happen to be writing to an admin who is just applying policies against using non-RS links. -- Fyslee/talk 21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, lost my head
That edit was rather pointy I guess. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, how's it going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.143.104 (talk • contribs) 15:28, August 18, 2007

List of numbers
In List of numbers, what is your basis for restoring the statement that lower case φ, which normally denotes the golden ratio, also denotes the golden ratio's reciprocal? This was thoroughly hashed out in the Golden ratio article a long time ago. While one can find stray examples of upper case ф being used for the golden ratio and lower case φ being used for its so-called conjugate, standard mathematics usage today is the reverse. Also, the List of numbers should conform to Wikipedia's articles on the relevant subjects. I didn't want to revert you without asking. Finell (Talk) 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I changed the reciprocal to $$\hat\phi\ \mathrm{ or }\ \Phi$$, leaving φ for the Golden ratio. If I didn't, please fix it.  $$\hat\Phi$$ just isn't right.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with phi-hat for the reciprocal; that is what I meant to question, but did not make clear. The Golden ratio article uses Phi (uppercase) exclusively, as do most other sources (especially relatively recent ones) that I have seen. I'll wait for your response before doing anything. Finell (Talk) 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Phi-hat", which I corrected to "Phi" or "phi-hat". I don't have have any objection to removing "phi-hat", although have seen that for the actual algebraic conjugate of the golden ration, which is $$\frac {1-\sqrt 5}{2}$$. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You just pointed to another problem with the Golden ratio article, discussed long ago on that article's talk page. Some (e.g., ) define golden ratio conjugate as
 * $$\Phi = {1 \over \varphi} = \varphi -1\,.$$
 * Others say the term conjugate should be used only for what you call the algebraic conjugate, that is, the negative root of the defining quadratic equation. Perhaps you could contribute some enlightenment on this and other matters in the Golden ratio article. Finell (Talk) 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
I have a question that I hope you can answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 15:26, August 18, 2007}65.102.143.104 Yes? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits
Dear Arthur,

I would like to direct your attention to my talk page for further discussion on what appears to be an unutterable misunderstanding. Consequently, I hope to see what can be discussed about this there will be most elucidative.— ignis scripta 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You made an edit against consencus
You removed a paragraph on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page against consensus. There has been an ongoing conversation on this topic. If you would like to contribute i suggest you head on over to the talk page under the heading "Edit reverted without cause.". this paragraph has been evolving all day. And while your efforts are welcome, please do not just delete the work which several wikipedians have been contributing throughout the day. While there may be some sections with dubious sources (i didnt check them all) you deleted at least one which references FEMA's on report and a quotation from it. Debeo Morium 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you seem to think everyone is questioning the sources. While it is true throughout the day we have debated the wording (and as a group it has evolved to its current state) i dont see a single person who disputes the sources themselves. You need to keep in mind some comments were made early in the day when the text was very different to what it is now. Look at the history and you will see that the current wording was arived at as a group, and at no point were the soruces in dispute. Debeo Morium 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources. I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal". The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled.  I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert.  .  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that. He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

RCF
What is RCF? 218.133.184.93 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The theory of real closed fields. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In what sense are the reals consistent? 218.133.184.93 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In what sense is Th(R) not consistent? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Th(R)? In what sense are the reals consistent? 218.133.184.93 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to say that an object is or is not consistent. Th(R) is the theory (mathematical logic) of the reals.  As the theory is decidable, it is consistent.  Peano arithmetic is what is what is not provably consistent in the results you're aping without understanding..  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that while the consistency of the axioms of natural numbers is shown, the consistency of those of reals isn't. Isn't that correct?218.133.184.93 06:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. In any system complicated enough to describe the first-order theory of the reals, the consistency of that theory can be shown.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A little help
Hi, im new here, so im not sure the proper way to go about this. But the following user has been responsible for a string of vandalism. I used the warning templates for each incident of clear vandalism i could find, but he has not stopped. I dont know the proper way to address an administrator to block him or take whatever action is needed. I hope you can either resolve the issue or point me in the right direction. Thanks Debeo Morium 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'll answer for Arthur. The official place is Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV for short). However, I had a look myself and blocked the user, so you don't need do any further action. By the way, you should sign the warning template you leave on the user talk page. I often forget to do so myself, but it is helpful. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, huge help for the future. Debeo Morium 10:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Igni
You can remove User:Igni from your "Watch list". You have successfully driven this user, who contributed substantial content to articles such as Weimar Classicism, from the project. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see him go, but he needs a content-watcher. He may have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia, but his recent contributions have made content changes in the guise of style or grammar correction.  He doesn't seem to realize that synonyms are not necessarily replaceable.  Where I could figure out what he was objecting to, (which is 2 of the 4 articles I've corrected him in), I've replaced what he wrote with a corrected version which still meets our content standards.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the FEMA quote SYN
Id really love to know why you think the FEMA quote is SYN. Seems pretty cear to me that fema was baffled by the sulfur. Id love to hear why you think this is SYN either here or on the talk page. If it is ill remove the quote myself (im not a conspiracy theory crusader, i only want both sides fairly represented cause i feel both the official story and the conspiracy theory story has their holes). So please, share your unique incite on this, because i either dont understand SYN, or am entirely missing something int he FEMA report (which i must have read 5 times since this debate started). Debeo Morium 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting it next to Jones is SYN, in that it's implying that FEMA supports Jones, while it just shows FEMA is incompetent. But we have a good example of that in their Katrina coverage.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your article
Hello, i was wondering if i could do an infobox for your article to improve it - kevinbocking 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. What do you have in mind? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was thinking of putting in an infobox for your article to improve it, and I was just wondering what you think of that. - IamMcLovin 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert to 1000000000 (number)
Hello,

What was misleading about my edit? It gives equal emphasis to both the short and long scales, whereas the current version gives preference to the long scale. --DCrazy talk/contrib 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Virtual Reality page
Dear Mr. Rubin,

I had added a link to virtual reality page. It was removed by you. I will appreciate if you please read it before removing it. It gives another perspective on the issue of virtual reality and was published as an editorial article in Times of India one of the leading papers of India. i hold the copyright and hence I thought the readers will be interseted in it.

Please undo the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.138.29 (talk) 06:55, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a particularly interesting link, but you've added it under enough different IPs that I can't confirm that you've violated WP:3RR, although I'm personally certain you have. I can't fix it for another few hours under that rule.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cryer
On the Tom Cryer page, I don't believe my revisions need explicit sources because the information is generally well known to anyone familiar with the material. Please list specific occurances of the necessary citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 17:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statements about the tax code, if implied to be fact, are just wrong. If they are to be attributed to Cryer, they need to be sourced to someone quoting him as saying them.  The minor changes that Famspear corrected were clearly wrong in your version.  Please discuss on the article talk page, before making major changes.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Bowel Tolerance article?
Why did you delete it?

There was no consensus on it, most people were saying to keep it.

It's a very fundamental aspect of vitamin c megadosing. I think if every episode of a tv programme can have its own page then you have NO RIGHT to undo all of the work on bowel tolerance.

PLEASE LEAVE BOWEL TOLERANCE UP.

Anonywiki 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted it because of the AfD result. If you don't like it, the correct way to re-create the article is at WP:DRV.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
You directed me to the talk page here: WT:MOSNUM, just letting you know here since you haven't replied there --Random832 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ODP
Do you edit on ODP? Your name sounds familiar. --Kmsiever 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact, I think you're my mentor over there.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Prime number
Hello. I would have reverted all of Wlod's edits. As it is you now have Z as rational numbers. Rational integers might be OK, but at the moment some bits of the article are in a bit of a mess. Why not just revert all of Wlod's edits to save time? Best,Mathsci 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the pre-Wlod version myself. As far as I can see from the diffs, he/she did not make any improvements to the article. --Mathsci 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Morgellons
Hi,

I would like to know why you reverted my edit that inserted verifiable text to the cited source, back to non-verifiable text to the cited source and used the argument POV. Thanks, Ward20 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were just a letter, it would not be a WP:RS, so calling it a "letter to the editor" is misleading. Quoting the exact text is fine, but calling it a "letter to the editor" is not without explaining why we consider it worthy of note.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I need to think about this. I would like to post my next revision here for your review if you don't mind.Ward20 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROLL
Hi Arthur, rather than trying to pull the mountain to Mohammad, it is probably easier to let the troll play his little game. It's quite obvious that in the last nine months he isn't interested in being constructive and in fact "enjoys" his little game. So rather than stroke his ego most of us are ignoring him.  Shot info  02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2010s
Please explain your revert and replacement of the future tag on 2010s. I know you're an experience editor and an all-around smart guy, so I presume you will be able to convince me that this tag serves some purpose, but the way I see things, given that this is 2007, it's obvious to anyone smart enough to tie their own shoes that we can only speculate as to the events of the 2010s. The tag is therefore, methinks, redundant and even insulting to the reader. I will watch this page for your thoughts. Unschool 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering what's been edited into 2010s and 2012 from time to time, some editors need to be reminded. Per WP:NPA, I decline to comment on the logical conclusion that some editors are not "smart enough to tie their own shoes".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the use of a cliché, especially one which was directed at no one in particular, constitutes a personal attack. Besides, my point was specifically the opposite, that I do NOT believe that our editors are so lacking in intelligence, but rather, that they are intelligent and do not need a "future" tag on an article about a future decade to tell them that the information within might be "speculative".  However, it appears that you have taken offense, which was not my intent, and so I apologize.


 * I am still left wondering, however, what it is that you are talking about. Your phrase, "Considering what's been edited into 2010s", is essentially what your edit summary said when reverting my removal of the tag.  It is no more clear now than it was then.  Could you please specifically give some examples of things that have been edited into the article that lead you to the conclusion that this tag serves a necessary purpose?  Unschool 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Reality RAI TV 1988 Mandala System
Why you deleted my contribution?

--Raffaele Megabyte 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Reality Very Nervous System and David Rokeby
You were so pompous you considered Rokeby NON RELEVANT!

Have you seen that his works have also received an award in Biennale of Venice? Venice_Biennale

He was a pioneer in immersive spaces of virtual reality, without the use of helmets or screens.

His works started in far 1986. years before Wikipedia was even conceived. But you canceled him.

Do you belive you are so acculturated you known everything of Virtual Reality, and that Virtual reality article it is a creature of you own?

Please keep your feet on heart and continue learn about things you ignored the existence before, and perhaps with a bit of humble behaviour.

Sincerely,

--Raffaele Megabyte 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR on 9/11 Truth Movement
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Arthur is claiming that the website shows no evidence of the degree, hence the wording that the good man "claims" it.  That's generous on Arthur's part, methinks.  The website is not going to say that he doesn't have a degree, is it?  I never went to Michigan State, would I expect the Michigan State website to say that I didn't have a degree from there?  Maybe I'm jumping in on something I don't understand, but Debeo, your logic baffles me.  Unschool 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course i dont expect them to say he didnt have a degree. When i went to the site arthur pointed out i did not see a list of every single person who has ever graduated with a degree. The closest i came to was finding a list of people who received some sort of award. Now if there was such a list, and i missed it, then that would satisfy me. But i found no list, and therefore no evidence this man was lieing about his degree. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your excellent contributions in the tax articles.You contribute at Quatloos as well, don't you? (I'm relatively new over there.) Famspear 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's me on Quatloos. I'm not contributing much there, any more, but it's nice to be recognized.  You might also want to keep an eye on the Wikipedia article Quatloos; tax protester WP:Vandalism has been known to occur.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, these are on my watchlist. Yours, Famspear 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Riemann Hypothesis
This edit is just wrong. $$\epsilon=\frac 1 2$$ is obviously an example.


 * I'm not sure if that's true. Could that be derived from PNT? Do you mind showing me?218.133.184.93 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * $$\pi(x) = O(x)\,$$ by definition
 * $$\int_0^x \frac{\mathrm{d}t} {\ln(t)} = O(x)$$ as $$\frac {1} {\ln(t)} < 1$$ for sufficiently large t.
 * Hence
 * $$\left|\pi(x) - \int_0^x \frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\ln(t)}\right| = O(x)$$.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this true? Cpuld you prove this too?


 * $$|\mathcal{O}(f(n)) - \mathcal{O}(f(n))| = \mathcal{O}(f(n)) \,$$

218.133.184.93 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Big O notation.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That just says this. How would you prove from here?


 * $$\mathcal{O}(f(n)) + \mathcal{O}(f(n)) = \mathcal{O}(|f(n)|) \,$$218.133.184.93 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's my "job" to give you an education in elementary mathematics. (And "=" is not symmetric when dealing with big O notation.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That will only mean that your claim is not valid.218.133.184.93 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I need to block you for violations of WP:AGF. Your lack of understanding of elementary mathematics doesn't entitle you to make unsourced statements that the rest of us recognize as being false, or to delete statements that the rest of us recognize as being true and obvious.  If you could find sources for your statements, then we might have to include a refutation.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are we? 218.133.184.93 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone else who speaks English who has ever edited the articles in question? I don't think that's an exaggeration.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you.218.133.184.93 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide a counterexample. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do your friends always agree with you? Do they prove your statements for you? 218.133.184.93 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We've had trouble with this even with regular editors; there are some mathematical theorems and methods which are so well-known that it's difficult to find anyone who's actually written it down. This is one of them.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WAREL / DYLAN, Arthur is right, both in that $$\epsilon = \tfrac12 $$ is an obvious counterexample and that he doesn't need to teach you the basics of asymptotic mathematics (or anything else, for that matter). Furthermore, for a Wikipedia article to say that no specific value of &epsilon; is known, there needs at least to be a reliable source which says that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Brun's theorem
I agree with you that the fact sum of the reciprocals of the Mersenne primes converges is too obvious. However, it still is a theorem. On the other hand, Brun's theorem that sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes converges is a bit technical. But, that still is just another theorem. How do you distinguish this two?218.133.184.93 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid whether something is "interesting" or "notable" in mathematics depends on the knowledge of the one taking note. But only those who are familiar with the subject can make that decision. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur (not you)
Hi Arthur. I'm a little confused by this edit. I added Joseph Charles Arthur to Arthur (disambiguation) because it seemed to make more sense than adding the link to Arthur, which was about the first name Arthur. All I'm trying to do is to make it possible for someone coming across the author abbreviation "Arthur" to be able to find the correct person. At present, there's no way for someone coming across the author abbreviation "Arthur" to figure who that might be (most botanists don't have a clue to whom author abbreviations refer). Even systematists often don't recognise authors outside of their specialty. Guettarda 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the proper place would have been Arthur (surname). But, thinking about it, if he was really known as Arthur, you may have chosen the correct placement.  My bad.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy Marvin Bush Wirt Walker etc
You are correct in that I said the claims were not cited. What was cited is that David Griffin has made the claim that Walker is Bush's cousin( and there are many cites of Griffin making this claim) and that a Kuwaiti ruling family member has claimed that Walker is a "distant relative". Of course these the claims come from biased and questionable sources. If you have not looked yet this is a matter of considerable discussion on the talk page for the article. The 9/11 conspiracy article describes conspiracy claims that are from biased sources of questionable or disputed credibility. The claims of a relationship between Walker and the Bush family in that respect is no different from many of the other conspiracy claims. I clearly inform the readers from who and the nature of the people making these claims. I also informed the readers that the Walker claims are "murky" above and beyond what I needed to do to make sure the readers understood the nature of these claims. I do not see a major difference in the subsection I wrote and the the Bush and Bin Ladin family subsection which has been allowed to stay in the article. The sections from describing the positions Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker held in the company and the company history were from the Washington Spectator a publication that has been around since 1974. I have no reason off hand to doubt the credibility of the publication and the publications credibility has not been challanged in the talk pages but if you have good reason as to why that publication or the writer of the cite is unreliable please state. Feel free to move this into the article talk page Edkollin 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Square root of 3 Talk page
Dear Arthur: The formerly active Talk:Square root of 3 as it previously existed, together with its edit history, disappeared. Today, IP 67.85.160.89 created a new Talk:Square root of 3 page with one word, "PROVE". Any idea how such a thing can happen or how it can be fixed? There was useful discussion about the article on the old Talk page. Thanks.Finell (Talk) 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I can't find any log entries for the talk page, deletion logs, etc.  Do you remember the last time you saw the talk page?  Perhaps I can go through the logs searching for a secondary entry?  Perhaps you might try Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I now think that this was my mistake. I was confusing discussion on Talk:Square root of 5 (which is still there, intact) with Talk:Square root of 3; now, I am no longer sure that I ever saw the latter. Perhaps Talk:Square root of 3 really was just created, albeit with only one word (which made me think it was vandalism). I apologize for wasting your time. Finell (Talk) 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indentation convention
Arthur, please see for instance, in Talk:function (mathematics), the section Talk:function (mathematics). Bo Jacoby started the section and kept 0th level of indentation. The same is true for thousands of other sections. If this also has the advantage of increasing readability by markedly shortening the (vertical) lenght of a very long (but also very important) contribution, I really can't see the reason to adopt a different convention.

Also, notice that the discussion Talk:function (mathematics) is actually a continuation and expansion of the previous section, which I started ("Inconsistent or ambiguous definitions of the word function"). It even uses the same figure as a starting point. It even contains a reference to the previous section (see my second posting). Actually, its section header was added by me! Initially, it was under the header of the previous section. Moreover, Wvbailey wrote that he posted his first comment after readindg the section I started on talk:partial function!

Therefore, please allow me to decide the format and keep it consistent in these three cross-linked sections. I believe I deserved this little privilege. And I am not asking the privilege to vandalize: the convention I chose is as sensible as any other, but in this particular case it also has the above-mentioned advantage with respect to the others.

Thanks for your contribution, anyway. With kind regards, Paolo.dL 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to keep it consistent, do so. But when you make such long comments, it's important to make sure that other's comments are   separated from yours by some indication.  The standard convention is to use indentation level, but Bill inserted his comment at the same level as yours.  If he had written a long comment at the same level, the talk section would be hopeless. Perhaps the non-standard and annoying  between comments in the section would be an alternative. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody can easily see the separation between comments because each comment has a different indentation with respect to the adjacent ones. I repeat that this is a (perhaps not written yet, but widely used) standard. You can see examples everywhere in Wikipedia.

Notice that you keep giving indentation 1 to the comment "Bill here:", but this was posted by Wvbailey! And I thought that we agreed that Wvbailey has 0th level in this section. Since I am keeping level 2, and I am not Wvbailey, I cannot see the rationale in your edit summary: The only one who "stole" an indentation level is KMsqr (he stole level 1, which was previously used by Carl), but as long as the separation between his comment and the adjacent ones is clear, I am not going to discuss KMsqr's decision, which is perfectly acceptable and (in my opinion) even better than using indentation level 4! His comment is so good and general that he deserves level 1!
 * "fmt (if you going to use a non-standard indenting convention, you should monitor to ensure that other's comments aren't confused for yours)"

When the discussion will be closed, if it will become very long, we might be alble to use subheaders to enhance readability, if needed. Please trust me. I refactored several talk pages, I do care very much about readability and I know what I am doing. See, for instance, Regards, Paolo.dL 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exterior to what? Ausdehnungslehre means "extension theory", not "exterior theory" (conservative refactoring by inserting paragraph titles)
 * Is there a convention about the order of multivector components? (conservative refactoring by inserting subheadings and paragraph titles)
 * User talk:Paolo.dL (conservative refactoring by inserting introduction, summary, headings, subheadings and paragraph titles)

Re
Hi, I am just inquiring about this edit. — Adriaan (T★C) 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's got references, doesn't it? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sixteenth Amendment
With regard to the change you undid on the 16th Amendment article, why do you deem the Tax History Museum at http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm to be "not a reliable source"? The quotes on the page can be verified even if you do something as simple as googling for them -- they show up in the Google Books version of Theodore Roosevelt's Presidential Addresses and State Papers. Linking Google Books is impractical as there are page limits on how much one can view of a book at one time. 66.108.169.227 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. There have been too many tax protester arguments added from unreliable sources lately.  I've reverted myself.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Real number#space
I wanted to link R24 from Leech lattice and other places Rn appears, because there's no introductory material about it. It is the kind of baffling technical notation which often is overlooked by expert editors who don't think twice about it. What's a better way to do that? &larr;Ben B4 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree #R is much better; will change it and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. &larr;Ben B4 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"And the "clarifications" [of WP:NUMBER], if kept intact, are longer than WP:NOTE."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. By my count WP:NUMBER is 8,767 bytes and WP:NOTE is 11,003 bytes. Whatever fraction of 8,767 bytes the WP:NUMBER clarifications are, they cannot possibly be more than WP:NOTE's 11,003 bytes. So, could you clarify what you meant by this? I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion that the clarifications of WP:NUMBER are longer than WP:NOTE. --Dragonfiend 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of paragraph on Osama bin Laden on 9/11 page
Dear Arthur

You have deleted the following sentence.

It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-$ 3 billion when setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation of the country.

I agree that this paragraph and its references might be improved. However, I do not think it is irrelevant: A balanced account of Osama bin Laden in the context of 9/11 should include a short description on how he acquired money, power and know-how to accomplish the attacks since this may contribute to the question about the origin or terrorism. I have put the above sentence on the discussion page.

--Benjamin.friedrich 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See the article talk page. I'm willing to discuss it, but we need real sources.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Golden Ration edits?
Dear Arthur,

I see that I added a phrase to an image that should have been added to the text next to it (which now is a fragment, though not necessarily worse than the wordy sentence it was before). I apologize for placing that phrase in the wrong position, which I'm sure I did because of unfamiliarity with the code.

Second, you took out the dates for Zeising as well as the brackets--but please note that I did not put those brackets there that form a link (albeit an empty one), only the years. I added his dates because he simply popped in out of nowhere, and those years form a sort of an introduction, even if still not a very good one. But I did not (as far as I know) make or break some Wiki-link, as is suggested on your page, and I don't see where I changed meaning unless it was by fixing grammar.

But I'll lay off. Thanks for your comment re: the picture, and perhaps you care to fix the actual paragraph next to it; I'll stay away from it and other articles. Good luck with your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect number
Will you allow me to change


 * The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 739 (Cohen 1987).

to


 * The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 2500000 (Yamada 2007).

from

?

Thanks.218.133.184.93 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Others have reported that that paper doesn't support that result, and some question whether it's considered reliable. So, at this point, no.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed that Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2, and it's still not published. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2. So is Cohen 1987.218.133.184.93 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even and odd numbers
Why is Nielsen's result not appropriate?218.133.184.93 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

iff
Sorry, I think its confusing the other way and thought the comparison of the truth tables would make it easier to understand. --Kenneth M Burke 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Million
I'm terribly disappointed in the recent edits to this page and User talk:152.91.9.144. To suggest that uw-3rr is appropriate is either an attempt to intimidate or displays a grotesque misunderstanding of the three revert rule. There was, in anything other than the most midless and bloody-minded reading, not even a single "revert." Please do review both these edits, and the arguments in talk. Projects do not own pages. 124.190.20.47 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A bot mistakenly reverts twice: Are you suggesting than anon << bot?
 * PrimeFan reverts with an edit summary that indicates he's mistaken the edit for vandalism.
 * To take your points in order:
 * You have reverted at least twice. Even reverting a bot counts as a revert.
 * The bot did not revert "mistakenly", it was quite correct.
 * PrimeFan's description may not be the best, but "per talk" shows a clear misunderstanding of the contents of the talk page. Repeating the error, after it's pointed out, is pretty close to vandalism.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop this nonsense
Please specify what bothers you about my edits in Colloidal gold. Your reverts are extremely destructive to Wiki. Stop it. V8rik 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I cannot confirm that your sources support your changes, I think I might revert anyway. However, I decided to just correct your edit and add a dubious tag.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pi (copied from user page)
Forgive me for placing this here, Arthur, but I couldn't figure out where else to put it.

There is a glaring error in the article on pi, the transcendental mathematical constant. Naturally, this article happens to be protected, heaven forfend that the great gods of Wikipedia could conceivably commit an error!

The article claims that pi is not constructible because it is transcendental. This may be sufficient, but it is not necessary. After all, the square root of two is transcendental, but I can readily construct it by drawing two perpendicular line segments of length one and merely forming the diagonal that completes the isosceles triangle.

Please correct the "pi" article or see that it is corrected, skeptic Jewish mathematician user (from another skeptic Jewish mathematician user).

Thank you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talk • contribs) 19:27, September 23, 2007


 * I don't see anything wrong with "An important consequence of the transcendence of π is the fact that it is not constructible." And the square root of 2 is not transcendental.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More on pi
No, indeed it isn't transcendental. I got ahead of myself. It is irrational but not nonconstructible. Come to think of it, the pi article didn't say that irrational numbers are nonconstructible, so nix it. Thank you. -- BDWilner 9/23/07 16:09EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Meta-systems
I don't understand your last refert on Meta-systems. Deleting a reference as linkspam doesn't make any sence. Please take a look Talk:Meta-systems. - Mdd 09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Adam's "stuff" seems to be frequently inserted on plausibly-related articles, and I couldn't see it was being used as a reference rather than as linkspam.  I've reverted my removal.  That being said, I agree the article needs an expert opinion, as the body seems to be unsourced.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this feed back. I know in the meantime how it feels to have to remove someone's linkspam over and over again. I realize now things are more complcated as they seemed. - Mdd 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit of Adam to Systemics makes me guess your were right from the beginning. I now referted his latests edit as selfpromotion. I would appreciate it if you could take a look here if you think I did the right thing. Thanks. - Mdd 11:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have started some rewritting of the article and create some space for further development. I guess I should do the same with the Meta-systems artcile. I am still wondering however if I was right to remove Adam's edit as selfpromotion. In the edit summary I called it "Removed self promotion by sock puppet from User:Adam M. Gadomski". I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the sock pupppet, because it was an anomynous ID nummer. - Mdd 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons
I still have Morgellons on my watch list, and I notice that some of your sensible-looking changes have been reverted. Is it time for more formal procedures, like an article RfC? The Talk page is a bit funny, in that it's hard to see if a consensus has been sought on the term 'medical.' Semi-protection is something to be considered. Since you've been following the recent history more closely, perhaps you can advise what should be done. EdJohnston 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks
Dear Arthur, I don't want to be in a war. But were you not in it too? (You won by the way). I do feel that as someone who has listened to a lot of what A.J. has to say, that to begin an article about him by defining him as a promoter of conspiracy theories is not a fair and just representation. I think he is someone who feels he has been lied to-has done actual research of published sources that has confirmed his suspicion, demonstrably. I may be wrong, but that does not make him a promoter of conspiracy theories. If I tell you you have a red face- then you look in the mirror and see it is not red- then you declare that your face is not red- this does not make you a conspiracy theorist- or promoter of conspiracy theories. Does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoon (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must disagree that he's presented evidence of the "truth" of his theories, as opposed to your claim that he's presented proof. But we've both lost, because the lie that he predicted 9/11 is now back in the article, and I can't revert it, because I used 2 reverts on your mistakes.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been a bunch of nonsense added to that article in the past 24 hours and I've exhausted my reverts as well (otherwise I would clean the article up). The current version of the article is unacceptable.  Why is it that I find myself approaching 3RR on that article more than any other?   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  08:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

re: "Logical connective" vandalism
Thank you for your inquiry on my user talk page, "Please explain why your link satisfies WP:RS or WP:EL?" For an explanation, see the new web page "Venn Diagrams and Finite Geometry" about the article on Logical connective. Cullinane 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for a separate inquiry today on my user talk page, "Please explain (through Wikipedia E-mail, or on my talk page) if you think there's a problem with DMOZ, or file an abuse report. I'll investigate to the best of my ability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"

Yes there is a problem wth DMOZ. For details, follow the links in the web page "Ashay Dharwadker and Usenet Postings".

For further evidence, see the DMOZ page on graph theory that is edited by Ashay Dharwadker.

Of the 30 links there, 6 are to Dharwadker's own pages at

http://www.geocities.com/dharwadker/

The home page of the Geocities site is devoted to Dharwadker's alleged proof of the four-color theorem.

For an appraisal of the alleged proof, see the archived Wikipedia discussion.

Anyone who questions the alleged proof is liable to be attacked under a variety of aliases. For an example other than myself, see the attacks by 122.163.***.*** and by "Rstewart" on Wikipedia administrator Jitse Niesen in May and June of this year.

If such attacks and vandalism are temporarily stopped by blocking the New Delhi IPs beginning with 122.163, they will likely resume from a new Internet service provider or proxy. Nevertheless, such a block seems worthwhile. Cullinane 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have edited the following comment by Greg Bard objecting to my implication that an illustration he used had not been arrived at independently, and to my use of an offensive term. The comment has been edited to remove the term, which I have retracted. Cullinane 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The arrangement of those diagrams are NOT from your website. That arrangement follows a logical pattern that A) has been published in numerous other places, long before your website, and B) follows a logical pattern such that it does not impart any new information that every rational being already knows directly. The pattern is no coincidence because it follows a logical pattern, not because it was copied from your site. Furthermore, the convention of shaded areas as "false" and white areas as "true" is the prevailing convention in literature on the topic.


 * I do not know anything about a user from New Dehli abusing an account. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with appropriately. If this user's actions instigated this accusation on myself, please re-evaluate your motivations. It seems that you added your page as a reference to that section, which is a welcome contribution, and it was removed by someone, which I agree is dumb. Please do not take your bad experience out on me. Also, the name Johnston diagram is the one used by an existing Wikipedia image which was the basis for the rest.


 * The only reason your page containing this arrangement is mentioned, is so as to explain a tesseract representation of the operators. This representation, interestingly, was removed from Wikipedia because it was believed by one person to perhaps be an arbitrary arrangement. The presence of the arrangement of diagrams on your page is unremarkable, non-original, and non-creative. Your belief that your page is the source of this arrangement is false, and the edit history of the page in question is consistent with that fact.


 * Be well, Greg Bard 23:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you profusely for your kind conciliation on my talk page. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you again here. Be well Greg Bard 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddity
Wondering about this edit. In your edit summary, you seem to predict the SearchChiro addition a full two minutes before it is even added. Am I missing something? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a complex history...
 * 06:17: Chirosearch added it here
 * 06:18: Shot info removed the link only here
 * 06:20: I completed reversion of the reordering here, without noticing the previous partial reversion
 * 06:22 Chirosearch readded the link only here
 * 06:29: I re-reverted at here
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

re: base composition edits
hi arthur.

indeed, i had checked into the right space for awhile of where this information would go.

modular arithmetic has something to do with the results of the combinations, but the information is really about what exactly is inside any given base B.

hence, from what i can figure out, the closest fit is inside the definition of a base itself, since the components are from that base.

that modular arithmetic comes into play is no surprise, as what the layout is talking about is the means of which to comprehend the symmetric, infinitely long 'strings' that make up any given base B.

that said, i think modular arithmetic is a means to examine, not what is actually being presented.

what i'm describing is more akin to a knot. there are a number (B - 1) of threads that, when woven together, create base B.

my argument for this information being in the base category is that these threads are unique in composition and position for each base B, thus are describing an inherit property of base B, and B could be any number, so it has to do exactly with.. well.. bases.

so, unless you can give me the go ahead to create a new page and link to it from the 'base' page directly, as it is directly following that and is indeed describing the internal composition of the bases, i'm pretty sure that the base page is where this information is to be entered.

thanks, chris.

UmbraPanda 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's relevent (if at all) to calculations modulo B, rather than in base B. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're properly comprehending the properties i'm disclosing.. it's not surprising, i've not seen the research anywhere else, and it's nearly too simple to see.

I'll try clarifying.

The only modulation used is the base itself. This is the first principle that you'll need to come to terms with.. it's unary in nature. Unary as a concept usually relates to a sequence of 111111 or whatever. in this case, it's BBBBBBBBB.

Following from this first principle of unary operation, the only operation space is the total span of the base itself. Thus, it looks like modular arithmatic, but it's really not. There's no concept of zero in there, nor any other quantized 'number' except for B. It's an expansion with B as unary operations.

So it's unary, operating on itself, revealing the patterns that make that specific unary cohesive as a.. domain perhaps. there's not really a word for it in english.

To push it into modular domain would be missing the point completely, narrowly. This is not a base operating on another base, this is a base as a unary element operating fully on itself.

The reason for the other 'numbers' is the quantization of what can be perceieved as spacial relationships of, like I said, something akin to strings. These, when written out, seem to be other 'numbers', but when there is just the unary to consider, it is what you're missing in the consideration itself. These are the symmetric spacial elements that construct the inner workings of base B, allowing all other quantizations in the next stages of mathematics.

I hope that this makes it clearer what exactly is going on.. you have to look at what is being represented. My position before is the same as it is now, that this procedure shows an inherit property of base B, is fully cyclic, fully symmetric, and totally composes B as an operator. There is no recognition of this procedure within the mathematics community that i've seen to date, no categorical entry more suited to this information than in the base category itself, else directly linked from that category into a new category, akin to anatomy from the  body

Chris. UmbraPanda 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It still looks to me as if it involves sequences modulo B. In general, anything involving the least significant digit of integers in base B belongs under modular arithmetic, rather than base B.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

on afterthought, and paying more attention to the 'radix' marker on this category, i think the termonology i'm using could use some refinement. i am referring to the terminating quantization diagram of a base on a given field, so i'll put some more thought into a section of modular field theory or some such.

Chris.

UmbraPanda 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On further consideration, I think your material cannot be included in any Mathematics article unless it is published somewhere. If it's not the least significant digit of a linear progression (skipping 0s), I don't know what it is, and we would need a reference.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

right, i came to the same conclusion regarding the referencing. it's a fascinating aspect of quantization if you get it.. the internal symmetries of how a base quantizes the underlaying field geometry. i'll try something like arvix.org

chris

UmbraPanda 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * arvix.org (or however it's spelled) is not a WP:RS as far as we (Wikipedia) are concerned. I think we'll need a published source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

arxiv.org is maintained by the 'Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation', which made me think it was a credible source.

so by published you mean perhaps a peer-reviewed journal? which of these is acceptable to Wikipedia?

chris

UmbraPanda 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * archiv.org is maintained by Cornell University, but not reviewed in any sense. It could be used, at most, to confirm that "the author claims....", without regard to truth.  In the case of mathematics, a peer-reviewed journal is generally considered to be required, except for some cases involving recreational mathematics where such should not be expected.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is VANDALISM 3RR rule does not apply to VANDALISM. Read the policy.
Hello There,

I understand that you may be trying to do good here, but I have already been through this. IPs come in and editing the John Morgan page, as well as others, with known NON SENSE. I remove it. Removing non sense is NOT VALDALISM. I have engaged them on many occasions, note the DISCUSSION OF THE PAGE, and noone ether replies, or they change it anyway, or they say that it is true without sourced information or they revert the edit and add even crazier things. Please follw up before you warn THE WRONG PERSON of the 3RR rule. IF you want to be productive, ban the IPs that are doing the known and documented vandalism, protect the site from editing by IPs but don't warn the guy trying to keep the article honest about the 3RR rule when he has already gone through the process before and was vindicated

-Kirkoconnell 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but adding of unsourced (but not disproven) favorable information about a person in his article is not vandalism. (I was going to suggest semiprotection this morning.  Perhaps I'll do that now.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer
I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion-- Phoenix 15 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

About deletion
Аhow can I delete an article that I had made in wiki. thanks october/5/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.161.2 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't actually delete it yourself. You may request deletion by placing the db-author tag at the top of the article.  Please see Deletion policy for more information, or to see whether I've misinterpreted your request.   &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

911 consiracy theories
How can you revert for OR when it is a factual event and the reference given is a scientific journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Placing the fact that airliners can be flown remotely with the theory that it was done in 9/11 qualifies as WP:SYN. Only if some of the truthers made the connections would it be allowable in the article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. I can tell you that some claim that all Boeing aircraft computor systems currently have the capability to hand remote control to a third party. There is evidence DARPA designed a system to take over a planes computor but no evidence it was ever used. I'd rather not add that but the section does need to be balanced. Wayne 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arthur, I just came upon this article that has a clean up needed on it. I would like to help with this article's balance and also help with the very long footnotes but would love any suggestions you have since I suspect this is a very controversial article.  I haven't read through the whole article yet but I have most of it.  I also looked at the footnotes and so far found one (#41 Who Killed John O'Neil) advert and two blogs, #14 & 244.  Can you suggest a way for me to enter this article without causing myself problems with other editors who have been or are now very active on this article?  I would appreciate any suggestions you have.  Thanks,-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category
Category: calques from German was deleted, due to its "essentially the same as Catergory:german loanwords." Sorry! 172.192.43.160 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was deleted, not merged. category:German loanwords does not include calques.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes User talk:172.191.100.66 is samel. 172.192.43.160 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 12 &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

THEY DO "CONTAIN STRING 'LOG'"...LEARN GREEK FOR ONCE 172.192.43.160 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was reading AN/I and noticed your post.  You appear to be dealing with the same editor whose edits I have had to revert recently due to a large number of factual inaccuracies and lack of sourcing.  The most recent of these is the contributions of 172.190.67.32, where German (and even some Hebrew) surnames were marked as German loanwords inappropriately.  I also had to revert a large amount of plausible, but incorrect information at List of most common surnames by the same author.


 * The history of that article seems to show this is the IP address of User:R9tgokunks (see 29 September). Further evidence for this comes from looking at the history of the article Calque - cf (,,  and then your latest experience ); also cf Prekmurje ( and  - anyone for grammer?), Spitz  or  with.


 * Overall, I suspect at least (numerous warnings on talkpage),  (that you encountered first),, (one block from you) and  (much edit-warring in history and almost identical edits here, here and ) are User:R9tgokunks.


 * Personally, I'm worried about the amount of just plain wrong information this editor is including - even if it's written in the best of faith, it leads people astray. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for a sample of mistakes I've corrected.  Looking at, he knows a little German, but certainly not enough to avoid simple errors when editing German language related articles. A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing - see.


 * It might be worth having a chat with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who blocked them previously for edit-warring and knows more about them. Might be worth a checkuser too. Knepflerle 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfair accusation
Your accusation on Talk:function (mathematics) was absolutely not acceptable and not substantiated.

Please either substantiate it as soon as you can, if you can, or remove it. If you want to delete it or rewrite it, you can also delete my answer.

Thanks, Paolo.dL 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say YOU were incompetent (although I admit implying it), I said YOUR contributions did not show knowledge of the subject. I stand by that statement.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You exactly wrote "your early edits in this article clearly show you do not understand the concept of function". When you write a personal attack, it must be based on facts. I scratched my head in vain and could not understand what are the edits you refer to. Reading my edits, I see myself as an editor which greatly improved the article. I repeat that even KSmrq did not touch my version of the definition of function, which is still the current version!

My hypotheses is that your comment is based on a misunderstanding:
 * You possibly confused my comments on the talk page with my edits in the article. There is a huge difference!
 * May be you attributed to me some text written by somebody else that I just moved from a part of the article to another. For instance, you deleted a sentence while I was editing the article, saying it was redundant. That text was not mine.
 * You might confuse me with another editor. For instance, as you can see on Talk:Function (mathematics) since I wrote a previous version of the section about inverse functions, Wvbailey was convinced that I was the author of the version written by KSmrq!

Please check! You should also explain why you did not revert my edits if they were wrong. Really, you should triple check before publicly offending someone. I remind you that behind these letters there is a human being.

Paolo.dL 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did confuse your confusing edits with someone else's confusing-to-the-point of being meaningless edits. Please check the talk page for my updated response.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

September 11 and Year subheaders
I see you reverted my addition of subheaders to September 11 because I acted before discussing the issue on the project talk page. Fair enough; nevertheless I already have started a section on the project talk page to discuss this precise issue, and I would very much appreciate comments from you and other people involved in the Days of the Year Project about the merits of these subheaders on such pages. Thanks, --M @ r ē ino 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,  Daniel  13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section in Gaming mathematics
Please don't delete external links that you aren't even able to review. I can only imagine that you're assuming bad faith on my part or ignorance on my part, neither of which is the case. If you're able to actually view the external link I've added, then we can and should discuss it on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Rray 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first one you added was not relevent, and the discover article was not relevent. Why should I assume the other article was relevent?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We can carry on one discussion at the talk page for the article if you'd prefer, but just because you think 2 links were not relevant (an opinion I disagree with), that does not mean the 3rd link is irrelevant. That being said, I can understand why you might make that assumption.
 * If you can find a way to access the page in question, we can discuss whether or not it's appropriate, but if you're unable to view the site, shouldn't you reply on other users' judgment and discretion? You and I aren't the only 2 people interested in that article, so if that link is inappropriate, I'm sure someone else can voice that opinion after actually looking at the page in question. Rray 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hovind's "theory"
Hey ho. It would be nice if there were another opinion or two in the discussion of the term "Theory" at Talk:Kent_Hovind. I know this debate is fairly trivial, but there are a couple of editors that seem adamant on the issue. Frankly, removing the word "theory" seems churlish, spiteful and prejudicial to me, but perhaps it is more reasonable to you. Anyway, a fresh voice would be good.

Thanks. Phiwum 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gorbachev 2011
Hi. You've deleted my edit twice now. You claimed that the source isn't reliable, and it lacks notoriety. I don't really care enough to debate you on whether or not he said what he did, but he did. There are other sources I chose only the first from Google. Secondly, if an ex-Communist President of Russia makes a statement claiming he will personally lead a revolution in a major American city I think that is notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I trust you will replace the edit. I don't care enough to anymore. Jstanierm 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Seems like you add the term "run by ex-editors" for the dmoz resources link on dmoz page. Just so you know it has both ex editors, and current dmoz editors involved, and no where has it been mentioned on the external link that its run by "Dmoz editors" ever, it has always been run by webmaster, and it is involved in provide status check and reviews for various webmasters. So, please note the difference down somewhere, its not run by so called ex-editors, so stop misleading or breaking the link title all the time.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbunny (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What chiropractors do
Hi Arthur. At the discussion on safety at the chiropractic article, you wrote this edit summary, "The two studies referenced for specific injury rates also fail to distinguish between chiropractic adjustments and spinal manipulation." I'm not exactly sure what deeper meaning is in those words.

It is important to note that even chiropractic research and articles do not always make any distinction. DCs commonly use both terms interchangeably. I read their stuff all the time and monitor their discussion groups. It is only ultra straights who are pretty consistent in using the term "adjustments". Especially when chiropractors do research with non-DCs, or when they are discussing with non-DCs, they will usually avoid using the "adjustments" terminology as it is esoteric and not a recognized medical term, or to be more precise, it has different connotations when used by different professions. Most (but not all) DCs actually believe they are literally "adjusting" (that is moving a vertebra from a bad position to a better position - from A to B, instead of from A to B and back to A, which is what actually happens). Non-DCs will usually (if they have any serious anatomical knowledge) deny the possibility of making such an adjustment "stick", since there is no proof it happens. So don't let ultra straight editors confuse you with the terminology thing. No matter what term is used, what we are discussing is "what chiropractors do." That's what counts. It makes no difference whether it's an ultra straight who says "adjustment" because he is singing to the choir and making sure they don't doubt the sincerity of this religious convictions, or an ordinary DC who says "adjustment" or "manipulation" to anyone else, or an ACA chiropractic leader or researcher who is politically savvy and wouldn't dream of using the "A" word with non-chiros. They are all talking about "what chiropractors do." -- Fyslee / talk 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

System Accidents
Arthur, please give me some space on the system accident article. I tend to view the discussion page as a chance to kick around ideas. I know a lot of people don't, but, but. ..

The Space Shuttle Columbia may be more of a borderline case rather full-fledged system accident.

There is disagreement, which should be acknowledged, on how dangerous Hadley Rille (Apollo 15) really was. You still have the case, my main point, of an astronaut hurrying down an unknown slope in order to stay to a rigid "safe" timeline.

Businesses carding everyone, including people who are obviously way, way past 21 is the best example of clunkliness and playing it "safe" that I can think of. And since the whole concept of system accident can be awfully slippery, I think it does help to include everyday examples.

--->most of all, our main article needs more than just three skimpy examples. Again, I think Avianca 052 and Apollo 10 would be good additions. Cool Nerd 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "businesses carding everyone" could relate to a "system accident". An "accident", perhaps, but not a "system accident".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Prod on Nick Munro
Hi Arthur! I noticed your edit summary here and since I figure you're addressing me because I replaced the tag, I'd take a moment to explain why I did so. The author of the page removed the tag, without either addressing the issues that were the problem, or objecting to the deletion on the article's talk page. Per the prod: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." Since neither thing was done (nor has it been done yet), I replaced the Prod. The entire article's claims are unfounded and unverifiable, as I did some digging and searching trying to verify them, but came up completely empty. As the person who placed the prod tag said originally, a 14 year old professional player is highly unlikely. I think that your addition of the fact tags and other tags is quite helpful, but I wanted to let you know why I originally replaced the prod. Hope that explains my reasoning! :o) <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
What's this guy done to you? He's an interesting eccentric with interesting ideas. He's more well known than "lonelygirl15", who has a page, and he's certainly has a lot more to contribute in terms of original thinking. Besides, where's the consensus for removal?Likebox 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He has personally attacked me (or my handle) on sci.math, but:
 * He does not have interesting ideas. (Those which make sense turn out to be wrong.)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (lonelygirl15) is not a reason to keep.
 * He has something to contribute in terms of original thinking? (See point 1.)
 * Consensus at Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination) (where I !voted "keep", although I accepted the merge on the talk page).
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arthur, since the verdict of the most recent AfD was Delete, wouldn't it be fair to delete the article history under the redirect, and put the redirect back, so that this kind of shenanigans can't take place in the future?  If necessary the surviving redirect could be protected. I assume you may consider yourself involved, so some other admin could do it. I was going to propose it at WP:AN but want to see what you think. EdJohnston 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, but this is not a shenanigan on my part, I am sincere. This guy, while almost always totally wrong, has been a bit of a role model for me personally in the way that he steadfastly maintains his positions, and adapts when he learns something new. Regarding the previous vote: the previous vote was plagued with the "unreliable reference" problem, which I fixed by citing the "Discover" article about him. It was also influenced by the fact the Plutonium objected to the article, because it was disrespectful, I fixed that too. The third problem of unreferenced autobiographical information can easily be fixed by adhering to the "biographies of living persons" guidelines.Likebox 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Plutonium objected to the article, because (in part) it was accurate. "Disrespectful" was a red herring.  And, although I don't fully agree with it, it's policy that USENET is not a usable source even under  WP:V WP:SELFPUB (particularly the last two points), because of the possibility of forgery.  If AP has a web site, we could use that under WP:V WP:SELFPUB, but notability would be hard to justify based only on his web site.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it is accurate that James Joyce snorted coke and had an affair with my wife, it is not reasonable to say that about him in a public forum. A wikipedia page is not the place to fight personal fights. The accurate statements about a living person should be respectful. AP has a website too, btw, and I cited the website as much as possible.Likebox 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing to consider is that there is a voting paradox involved when considering the three options "delete" "keep" "merge". Although if you hold a vote between the two options "delete" against "keep or merge" you get one answer, if you consider the two options "delete or merge" against "keep" you get a different answer. Since the options under considerations were "delete or merge" vs "keep", the people who supported "merge" were automatically put in the "delete" category, and this is not fair. These types of things should be avoided in the future. I understand that he is not the nicest of people, I argued with him too way back when. But that was ten years ago, and I have come to realize that even he had something important to contribute. As far as original ideas go, his idea on group selection through warfare seems interesting, as does his nonstandard Adic integers.Likebox 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message at User talk:68.146.41.232
This is in response to the message you left at the above IP talk page. I was unaware that I had been logged out, so I was the one who made the edits that you claimed were vandalism. First, please sign your comments when leaving messages on talk pages. Second, WP:Assume good faith. Not all edits by IPs are vandalism. Thirdly, please specify where in the article 2060s or indeed anywhere in the similar articles I edited (while unintentionally logged out) is a ban on anniversary listings indicated. If no such indication is given, might I suggest a note be added to all these articles so that newcomers and experienced editors (logged in or logged out) may be aware of this? Your posting on the IP talk page, to be honest, had the feel of WP:BITE to it as well. Cheers. 23skidoo 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the actual decision was made in a deleted WikiProject, but I'm not the only one who remembers seeing it, and it seems like a good idea. See the history of the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking in 2011 (which made it as a hidden comment), the quadracentennials (which should be tercentennials, according to my online dictionary) in 22nd Century, millennials in 3rd millennium, and other anniversaries.  Thanks for poking me into finding where it should be, in Timeline standards.  I'll put in a request there for consideration.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Escarbot
Hello,

I am presently correcting the pages wrongly modified by Escarbot.

It will be easier if you unblock it.

I did not use the -noredirect flag, as some languages (hr:, ksh:, ru:) have renamed their year pages. In that case it is better to follow the redirects. I agree that it has caused some damage in future years.

Best regards,

Vargenau 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll unblock. I'd appreciate it if you monitored the bot's progress, though.  I'm not familiar with that particular bot template, though; is there a way to hold a series of edits and see if the bot requests multiple edits to the same interwiki tag, and flag those for human review?  That might solve the problem I'm seeing, although it might not help the problem which triggered last year's block.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. I think I have corrected all damage on en:; I will monitor the bot operation. I do not know if monitoring can be automated as you suggest.

Vargenau 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your revision to 165498127
Sir, You have revised my link under "undo non-notable external link, probably created by the editor;Undid revision 165498127" You are right about the removal as it is non-notable, however I would like to request you to tell me the proper place (in Prime Number Page) where I can put this relationship between two primes (P1^P2+P2^P1) = P1+ P2 (MOD P1*P2) so that there will not be any need for that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpandya (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we've stretched the point on some articles, but, in general, we cannot include even very interesting mathematical statements unless a WP:RS said it. I'm afraid you, personally, are not a WP:RS in this context, so, regardless of the mathematical merits, we cannot include it in the article unless it's published.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AP again
Hello Arthur. Per, I gather that you and I are considered part of an 'active smear campaign' on Wikipedia. That comment is currently in the main article on AP, which references the Talk page as evidence that there was such a campaign. I may not be the best one to pursue this. EdJohnston 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Barry Chamish
Hello Arthur. Perhaps you could care to explain why you reverted my well summarized edits to this page as a small edit without an edit summary and with use of admin buttons as if it were vandalism. Your admin buttons are definitely not meant to push through your own opinions and my edits were anything but vandalism! Of course, you may disagree with me (I carefully read the referenced articles before making the change, even though through my edits up to about a year ago I was already acquainted with the subject area), but then you would still have to change my edit as a regular edit and while explaining why you prefer whatever version you prefer. In fact your revert deleted parts of the original quote I had put back in the article (as explained in the edit summary)!!! I assume it was a mistake, because these parts were in brackets and may have looked somewhat controversial. You may have overlooked the summaries and not looked at the referenced material. It was the essence, however, of the criticism. Mistakes happen. Regards, gidonb 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ripper edits
Thanks for your contributions there, as I think the mass reverts were going to get out of hand kinda quickly. I posted int he Discussion page that we shouldn't hold DreamGuy's past behaviors against him (unless they re-occur, as per the latest RfC caveat allowing for immediate blocking for uncivility). I am going to opt to have everyone reconstruct the article from the 'bricks' supplied by the 'structures' of both versions, and have posted a request for both calmness and the establishment of some touchstones of incontrovertible fact in the Discussion page. I would invite you to participate in the reconstruction of this article, as your edit history appear to be pretty solid. Either way, thanks for helping to calm things down. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
I respectfully ask that you stop putting annyoing unsupportable tags on the Archimedes Plutonium page. When discussing a murder charge where the person involved is not at all involved (and everybody knows it) the right thing to say is "specious". I also ask that you stop editing the page for a while. What makes you say that AP was born in 1950, the references I found have him born in 1968. But I could be wrong.Likebox 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Specious" seems incorrect, if the book is correct. The connection between AP and the murder victim was tenuous, but they both appeared crazy.  Certainly "incorrect", and perhaps "without adequate foundation", but "specious" seems to me to imply that the police should have known better.  specious seems to imply that any false accusation is "specious", so I may let it go, but "specious" seems a questionable word choice.
 * And I don't think I've played with the dates. That was this anon edit.  You should be able to undo that.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please listen, if you don't say "specious" about such a thing then it becomes a question in the reader's mind whether he was involved. That's no good. I don't want to get into detail about the investigation, because it really has nothing to do with him. He got draggen in because he acts weird, and in my opinion acting weird is not justification for police harassment, so specious is IMHO the perfect description. I am not editing the article, because emotions run high on this subject. I am asking you to give it some time.Likebox 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Dr. Rubin--- it is inappropriate to say that someone is questioned for murder without saying that there was no basis for suspicion, when all the sources agree that there was no real basis for the questioning, other than his eccentric posts. Please do not make libelous erasures on a page about a living individual. It is not just in bad taste, it damages people's lives.Likebox 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No source presently referenced said there was no real basis for the questioning; hence it's probably a BLP violation against the police chief. However, please leave the (new)  tag in place, unless you can provide a specific source for that statement as written.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, this is not a joke, you are making OR claims that there was suspicion. Please do not do this. It is a terrible, immoral thing to do. Shame on you.Likebox 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there was suspicion. I'm saying there is little evidence that there was not suspicion, and it's WP:OR to say otherwise.  I shouldn't have added the dubious tag, but the or tag should remain until a source is found for that statement.


 * This is reprehensible behavior!! How would you like to have a shadow of that magnitude cast upon your character? Have you no shame?Likebox 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am requesting that you remove your libelous and actionable comments from the talk page at Archimedes Plutonium immediately.Likebox 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, Arthur Rubin, you know very well that it does not imply that the police chief was doing anything wrong. He just has an obligation to pursue all leads, no matter how specious. You are continuing to write irresponsibly.Likebox 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your statement is an unsourced statement which has a logical consequence a negative statement about a living person. It must go.  My modification is as much as is stated in the source material, although it should logically disappear entirely.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This page is somewhat reasonable now, although it is still slightly ambiguous. But it was no thanks to you. After your insinuations, I had to read all about this sordid business to the end, and waste a lot of time to completely convince myself of the fact (a fact that you were very well aware of) that AP was not involved. If you had any shred of human decency you would have written something to that effect yourself. This whole affair has left a very bad taste in my mouth. I hope to never interact with people such as yourself again.Likebox 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We (Wikipedia) don't deal in facts, although I, at least, make an effort to make sure that things I know to be false don't appear in articles I monitor. We deal in what others have written.  Unfortunately, no one has said that that knew AP was uninvolved in the murder, and we only have the police chief's statement that he didn't think AP was involved.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand now what you were trying to do, Artie-poo, but I wish you would have told me in a discrete email before this whole thing blew up. I apologize for thinking you are a monster. I apologized on the AN/I page also. Feel no need to respond.Likebox 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About reverting
Hi Arthur. With regards to [ this edit], could you please not use the rollback tool on edits that are not vandalism? I think Help:Reverting sums it up better than I could, and I hope you don't mind me quoting it here. :-)
 * "Reverting a good-faith edit may ... send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."

Anyways, please try to take more care when using your admin buttons. :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need more clarification as to whether a blind revert by an editor who has previously committed blind reverts and shows no sign of ever listening to arguments might be consindered "vandalism". The first time I reverted him, I used "undo".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look no further than Vandalism! :)  If I may quote again (only because the policy says it better than I ;-), "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 considered vandalism."  I don't know DreamGuy's history very well, but looking specifically at his edits on Jack the Ripper, it certainly seems to me that he was editing in good-faith.  :-)  He added quite a few references, did some wiki-gnoming/formatting ... its not like he was deliberately inserting factual errors or replacing entire paragraphs with vulgarity.  ;-)  So I would say, at least with regards to editing that article, that it certainly seems as if he is editing in good faith.  :)  --Iamunknown 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need to update Help:Reverting to make it clear that reversions of edits which are clearly outside the charter of that article can be done without further comment, rather than just clear Vandalism. For instance, on the WikiProject Days of the Year articles, reverting redlinked births and deaths should be allowed under rollback.  But I suppose I need to be more careful to undo blind reverts rather than using rollback.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy
Would you mind leaving him and his talk page alone? Justified or not, he believes you have something against him. If he really does something inappropriate, why not let someone else handle it? Friday (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got a tough one, then. In false memory, he made a major revert which I think is probably justified, although I wouldn't have done it, in part because I would have made even more uncivil comments than he did.  Could you let him know that I'll support him on that article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I'm afraid the answer is I won't leave his edits alone except in those places which I followed references to his edits which I found the arguments valid. As for the block section of his talk page, he could delete the entire section, but retitling it is wrong. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To rephrase, I'll leave him alone (or support him) in Jack the Ripper and any new articles which I hadn't been monitoring, but I'll still actively revert him in the Photoshop family or any article which I have previously been monitoring, even if I haven't actively edited. As for the section title on his talk page, I'll let Neil decide whether it's a violation.  If it is, it should be excised.  It's his opinion as to whether it should be referred to as unjustified that should stand, rather than DreamGuy's or El C's.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough- I wasn't trying to suggest that you curtail any normal article editing. But, when it comes to things like his user page, I think it'd be less drama all around if you avoided interacting with him as much as you reasonably can. Friday (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say you'll actively revert him, I trust you only mean if a) his edit was not a good one, and b) you will explain why the revert was made. Reverting for no reason, or at least no explanation of your reasoning, particularly of a user you have had god knows how many run-ins with, could be considered pretty antagonistic. Neil   ☎  23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
A discussion regarding an incident to which you are a party is being discussed at WP:AN/I, and I would appreciate your input. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one do you have in mind? I'm named in 3 active discussions....  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
I thought you may be interested in seeing/commenting on [Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Move_to_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict this]. Please take the sources and suggestion into consideration. --Shamir1 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of confused on your position. "Including Israel as a participant without including Hezbollah is wrong, even if it were commonly used. Including Israel as a location is problematic, as only the initial kidnapping and occasional rocket attacks were in Israel." There is no issue of participant/location. ("Israel-Lebanon conflict" infers a conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Changing it to war would infer a war between them. Remember that every war is a type of conflict, conflict does not mean not a war.) Also, we are not measuring how many attacks took place on either's soil. I dont think what you state as problematic is actually the problem being discussed. Anyway, Im not trying to attack your position, please take all of this as friendly. I want to better understand you.
 * Anyway, there is a list of sources from news media there. (These are titles of summaries they have published on the war--what we are trying to figure out. These are not just title or texts of random news stories.) Do you see Israel-Hezbollah War as a legitimate title? --Shamir1 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do, but it won't be accepted. (How about we list the participants in alphabetical order, making it Hezbollah-Israel War, as Hezbollah-Israel-Lebanon War is too long.  (LOL).
 * Israel calls it the 2nd Lebanon War, so 2006 Lebanon War seems a reasonable place. I'm not sure what Lebanon calls it.  Hezbollah calls it something we can't use. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can state your opinion if you think it is a good title.
 * Moving back to the original was my suggestion of trying to ease this dispute. We can add a verifiable title with ...also known as... The problem is, 2006 Lebanon War really isnt verifiable. I havent seen a summary or a report on the war entitled 2006 Lebanon War from any reputable source.
 * "Israel calls it the 2nd Lebanon War, so 2006 Lebanon War seems a reasonable place." Does that really sound like a Wikipedia policy? We know the answer to that. Israel calls it the Second Lebanon War because it was the second time (for them) that their soldiers fought in Lebanon. It is easy to call it that strictly from an Israeli viewpoint, not a Lebanese or any other viewpoint. That is not an internationally used title or used in the English-speaking world. Also, the 1982 Lebanon War essentially has nothing to do with this war or its naming. That name may be used for an Israeli encyclopedia article; and it kind of is. As I showed, The Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews entitle their comprehensive articles on the war "Second Lebanon War". So what can we say? Easy, that it is known as the Second Lebanon War in Israel. That is what is verifiable. No other encyclopedia-like article entitles it that or even Lebanon War.
 * If you see Israel-Hezbollah War as a good name, I encourage you to say it too, I think it would be a good idea. I have really taken a look at all sources for the appropriate name. For Wikipedia, its all about sources, sources, sources--and that is what should be discussed. So anyway, as you know, the sources from news media are there to see.
 * PS - while I understand the influence of Wikipedia, the "who-knows?" possibility of the Encyclopedia of the Orient copying us is really not a legitimate argument for us to consider. --Shamir1 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Plural
RE: your question on the plural of Halifax (Talk:Halifax, West Yorkshire). Those of us born in [Halifax, West Yorkshire]] are known as 'Haligonians'. :o) Richard Harvey 09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil
I see you had further interactions at Log and and Scram. Since then I've been at Ried and an old favourite, Calque. The words added at Calque pretty much tie User:R9tgokunks to 172.192.43.160, and all the rest...

Anything we can do to stop this becoming a regular social fixture? Knepflerle 11:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Year zero
Dear Dr. Rubin: It has been over a week since I suggested an error by Cassini in the Year Zero article. I appreciated your response to my comments. I do not find that anyone else has responded yet. I suppose that it may take some time for this to get sorted out. Since no one associated with Wikipedia has any information about my background I thought I should enter it in my User page and have done so. I have encountered extreme difficulty in making my case in the Third Millenium article (subhead - Third Millenium again). Sam HastingsSammy 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have a case in 3rd millennium. You may have a case in year zero, but I doubt it.  Neither the Julian nor the Gregorian calendars have a "year 0"; the Julian calendar, in both cases because 1 AD is in the past of when the numbering system was defined.  (For what it's worth, I don't think there should be a section #third millennium in the year zero article, as the issues are irrelevant.)  It should also be noted that ISO8601 is not a calendar, but a notation which can be used with either the Julian or Gregorian calendars.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA on Tom Cryer article
An RFA for the Tom Cryer article has been filed in which you are a party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Green aspects of Virtual Reality
Arthur, I like the fact that there is an active edit of the Virtual Reality topic. You have reverted my edit, however, thus eliminating the topic. Yet you must admit there is merit to this approach. If your only objection is a mention of Second Life, then let's use another of may available examples: Raph Koster's new MetaPlace, the open source Multiverse model, Project Entropia, Sony Home, the original Alpha World... there are many. Or we can avoid the naming of any particular world and simply generalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarmein (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any of those as appropriate to "virtual reality". If you can find a reference to what might be termed "immersive teleconferencing", that might be appropriate, but I don't see any of those examples — of what might be called "universe simulations" — as relating to virtual reality, or of being "green".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A Smile :-)
As much as we disagree, I am always pleased by your open-mindedness and rationality. I think that's what distinguishes you as an admin. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulda Regehr Clark
You have deleted the following citing BLP concerns:


 * In 1993, while Clark lived and practiced in Indiana, a former patient complained to the Indiana attorney general. An investigator for the Indiana Department of Health and a deputy attorney general visited her office incognito as part of a sting operation. Clark proceeded to test the investigator and "told him he had the HIV virus [sic], but said that he did not have cancer." She told the investigator that she could cure his HIV in 3 minutes, but that he would "get it back" unless he committed to returning for six more appointments. She then ordered blood tests from a laboratory. Upon learning of the undercover investigators' status, Clark stated that everything she had told them had been a "mistake".

Please explain your reasoning. This borders on aiding and abetting a criminal (which aid is being applauded immediately above) by deleting a significant part of the story. Without it we are left with an odd narrative that doesn't make much sense. She is a scam artist who got caught red-handed and the source is as official as they come - the state's deputy attorney general. I and others have allowed Levine2112 to use legal documents unfavorable to Barrett which were hosted by Bolen and Negrete - both very antagonistic to Barrett - when they were the only sources, and he certainly didn't object or even thank us for our generosity in allowing such use. That was a long time ago and I don't know the current state of those references, but that's the way it went down. Now he and you are removing evidence. I trust you to be acting in good faith, so what gives? Is this really a BLP issue, a COI issue, a RS issue, or something else? Should wikilawyering be allowed to twist Wikipedia's nose into unrecognizeability, causing Wikipedia to become an unreliable source? What would be the Solomonic solution here? There must be a way to keep this information in the article. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that the affidavit is at best, a primary source, and cannot really be used to suggest the truth of the accusations, even if reprinted by a Reliable source. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the deputy attorney general was lying? That's a serious criminal offense. Are you suggesting that the further actions leading to the apprehension of Hulda Clark on a fugitive warrant were therefore based on false charges (a suggestion that has never been uttered by Hulda Clark or her lawyers)? What later happened only makes sense in light of the part you have now deleted. If there is a problem with the text used in Wikipedia, rather than the source, then why not reword the deleted paragraph and still use the sworn affidavit of the deputy attorney general as the source? If a court can accept this as true (which it obviously did, or she wouldn't have fled and later been arrested), why can't we? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we could use the indictment, if referenced in a secondary source, but not the affidavit. (The affidavit was probably not supposed to be published, anyway.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bilderberg
I posted this on the Talk page there. You can respond on the Bilderberg talk page under the NWO (because I think that is what the documentary is about) or you can respond on *my* talk page. I will not be coming back here to see if you have read this. Here's what I said:

"::::::::Hi. I did not read this whole discussion but I can see that it was unresolved at the last post. Personally I have no vested interest in the conspiracy theory but it does exist. I tried to post a link to a documentary I found about the link btw Bilderberg and NWO, but a user named Arthur Rubin continues to remove it without discussion or explanation. It is a little unnerving to be strong-armed on the Wiki, but alas what can one do? You can find it in the history under my name if you would like to repost it. I will try once more. If he removes it again without explanation I will consider it an edit war and ask for arbitration. I assume there might be a reason to remove it, but without giving an explanation I will just have to believe there is no good reason for removing it. Ciao. <font color="#ff004f">S<font color="#ff001f">a<font color="#ff1000">u<font color="#ff4000">d<font color="#ff6000">a d e 7  17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)"


 * My take is that Alex is not a reliable source for anything, and since the Bilderberg group has real, living, people, his films cannot be used as evidence toward the truth of anything regarding the group. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I don't even know the guy. I just found the documentary and that is how I heard about Bilderberg. So I came here and read about them and then I added the link since the film was new and there was no link. I didn't pay enough attention to notice that almost all the links were conspiracy theory stuff. I am a reasonable person, I just like to know why my edits are deleted (they usually never are). Thanks. <font color="#ff004f">S<font color="#ff001f">a<font color="#ff1000">u<font color="#ff4000">d<font color="#ff6000">a d e 7  19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

MEBCAB Case Tax Protester
Hello!

I'm Aeon and I will be your Mediation Cabalist for your issue. I'm currently reviewing all statements, difs and said article and will be able to start the mediation soon. All involved parties if you could please leave quick note (no need to make any further statements until I'm ready to begin) saying if you are still willing to undergo mediation. Please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal cannot and will not enforce the ultimate consensus that will hopefully be gained from this and it will be up to the involved parties to uphold the agreement. Also during the mediation all parties will remain civil (Per WP:CIVIL) and will treat each other with respect. Thank you Æon  <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now!  17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick roger up on the mediation. Æon <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now!  18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now!  18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Akira Asada
personally i think deletion for notability should really be a right restricted to people who actually have at least SOME familiarity with the subject... i have at least 20 articles nominated for deletion simply because the editor, in their infinite wisdom, "haven't heard of the guy"...

news flash... there is this thing called "the language barrier"... just because some guy's name doesn't appear in English, or rather, latin script, doesn't mean he's not famous... this is espeically true for authors, ever heard of Jin Yong? the guys's sold over 100 million books... yet he's pretty much unknown in the English speaking world...

let me ask you, how many japanese author can you name by heart? if you can't name more than 10... then you are simply not qualified in passing judgement on the notability of japanese authors... and how many japanese philosopher / economist can you name by heart? again, if you can't name more than 10, the you really don't have any business passing judgement whether a japanese philosopher / economist is notable or not...

The book you're looking for is isbn 4-326-15128-5, a simple act of copying the name of the book into google and click search could have gotten ya what ya looked for.. even if you don't read japanese, having and search result that clearly spells amazon.co.jp should pretty much give it away... (i don't read japanese either, by the way)

http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/250-6284653-5868254?__mk_ja_JP=%83J%83%5E%83J%83i&initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%90%F3%93c%81%40%8F%B2+&Go.x=10&Go.y=14&Go=Go

if it sounds like i'm bitching, it's because i am.... please, next time use the "name more than 10" rule --if you can't name 10 things similar to an entry... then you really have no business judging its notability...

also, there are quite a few clues to whether someone is notable ... having lots of google result is one, having quite a few different editors editing an entry is another, having a long aritcle in the wikipedia entry in other languages is another... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the English Wikipedia, being the author of a best-selling book may be adequate for listing, but sometimes it's the book that's notable and the author is secondary. Even so, there are (or were, as of this morning), no citations or references in the article, and there is at least one Vietnamese author with as much or more claimed notability who we believe is a hoax.  This article should not be kept unless some citations are given.  The amazon.co.jp article reference might help.  (And I did copy the name of the book into google; it doesn't seem to be the most prominent book with that title.)  If nothing happens in the next few days to improve the article, I'll put it up for AfD.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You missed
Hi Arthur,

I was kind of fond of my clean block sheet. Please try to be more careful in future.

Hesperian 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Perhaps we should just permanently block the schools, and be done with it....  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hovind
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Ursasapien (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Be aware of the kerfuffle that I stepped in at User_talk:86.16.103.211 over the notability of Joe McDonnell events. Just fyi. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy_2
Well, notifying a user of enforcement complaints is not considered vandalism, so someone should have done so, and he could have removed it at his whim. I am going to presume that Jaysweet missed the note about notification or whatever. I've notified him now. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John W. Morgan
Welcome to the weird world of that article. There has been some long time ongoing vandalism there by several IP editors. Silly stuff mostly, like claims of a high IQ, (though the subject claims he has never been tested), and other unsourced and amazing claims. But lately they've taken to harassing User:Kirkoconnell, who has been cleaning up after them, and it has spilled over into other Cape Breton-related articles. So anyway, good to see someone else lending a hand there, just thought I would brief you on the nature of the problems. - Crockspot 00:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I followed a different IP from Christopher Michael Langan, where Morgan was claimed to be an associate of almost as high intelligence. It would be interesting to see if there really is any relationship between them. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Repressed memory
Thanks for starting to step in at Repressed memory. You might also wanna have a look at Recovered Memory Therapy. I've already posted the beefs I have with the recent development of both articles here. Also note how they're quoting outdated sources (also by simply mentioning newer sources quoting their older ones but not explaining what purpose these quotes serve in the newer sources, could be the newer sources are trying to explain what dark age we've left behind when people became aware of what a scam RMT is) pre-dating Ofshe & Watters 1996 that mostly did away with this whole mess. --Tlatosmd 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Niels
Could you please sockblock his IP puppet, too? User talk:75.83.171.237 - otherwise he will continue from that account. Dyanega 08:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a little bit. I think there was one good edit a while back from that IP, so I don't think we could extend it beyond a month or so.  Please request it on WP:AIV, so an uninvolved (and more experienced) admin can deal with it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm...he removed your block notice, repeatedly, and even continued blanking the sockpuppetry page Suspected sock puppets/75.83.171.237. If he's blocked, how is he able to continue editing? Dyanega 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a Survey
dear Wikipedia Administrator ,

thank you for your kind attention to this message.

My name is Zhan Li and I am a PhD student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. ( You can view my bio (scroll down) for verification here: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral/1.aspx )

I am asking approx. 200 randomly selected Wikipedia administrators if they would like to participate in a brief (it might take you about 10 minutes) online survey about their use of open content online encyclopedias. I am conducting this research for an introductory research methods class under Professor Peter Monge ( http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~monge/ ).

I hope that, if possible, you will participate in this survey. Please note that you must be 18 years older or over to participate.

Here is the link for the online survey, which begins with information pages detailing survey conditions and participant rights as well as my contact details for any questions:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a73oeHUjW9QKvYB7fmIb0A_3d_3d

The survey will close at Pacific Standard Time 12:15 AM on Wednesday 14th November. If you have any problems accessing this link, please let me know.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.

Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Era categories
Hi Arthur. Thank you for contacting me. As you requested, see my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time. I will be happy to discuss any issues you may have in detail. Thank you so much, IZAK 08:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change 2007
No, I've seen signed documents by Avery himself of the contract on the internet. I will have to find it. Until then, stop deleting simply because you don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil in Crawford (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alex is not a WP:RS about anything other than what he says, and I'm not entirely sure he's a reliable source about what he said. He's certainly not reliable about what he did or does. That being said, we could leave the statement in place with an appropriate template. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones' websites citations
What, in opinion, should we do about it? Should we take off the unnecessary ones and/or delete the information that the sources provide? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Kevin 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well? Kevin 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not sure which articles you're talking about, but....
 * His websites fail WP:EL and WP:RS except, possibly, in his article. I'd say they even fail in regard articles on his works, but that's close.  So, my suggestion is to delete all trace of them on anything other than Alex Jones (radio).
 * Even in Alex Jones (radio), we really can't use them for anything other than what he said at the time of download. There's little indication that radio shows and transcripts have not been reedited to clarify his, say, predictions.  I lean against there being any reference to them, except as sources to what he is saying now (i.e., at the time of download).
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Erdos number categories
You are a brave man to mention Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1 in Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_10! Thincat 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to, didn't I? It is a category, after all, and anyone could check.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars on Vito Corleone
Greetings, Arthur Rubin. I, of course, am an editor of Wikipedia and I constantly try to find the correct information for fictional characters and their biographies, etc. Recently, I edited characters from The Godfather films and remove both unverifiable and false information. However, on Vito Corleone, I seem to be entering an "edit war" with User:24.186.50.66 (see Special:Contributions/User:24.186.50.66 and history of Vito Corleone). He keeps changing the dates on the birth date and death date of the character, but he is incorrect. I have The Godfather DVD Collection, which comes with a Bonus Materials DVD. As you can see on the article, I sourced/referenced the Bonus Materials for the birth date and death date. I can take a screenshot to prove the reference/source to you, from the "Family Tree" which states Vito Corleone's birth date/death date (actually, only the birth/death years, which is what the IP keeps changing). I would just like to ask you, since you're an administrator, could you please let the IP know that he must stop editing the article with false information? Please and thank you. Notify me if you want my proof, sir. To let you know, the correct birth year is 1892 and the death date is 1954. -- Victor  (talk)  22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Deciding on the "true" date of death of a fictional character who appears in multiple media and multiple versions is problematic, at best. We have, at least, the novel, the movie, and the video game, and as the movie article points out, there are slight differences in versions in the movie releases.  They probably don't extend to there being different birth and death dates, but....  What I can do is request that the anon not change sourced data without a source of his own, but I don't know if such a source might exist.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can tell you from experience that the video game does not state any such birthdate/deathdate, regardless of the fact that it is based off the first film. Secondly, the DVD collection is based strictly on the films, not the novel, therefore the film version birth/death dates are canonical as put by Francis Ford Coppola (the director of the films) in the Bonus Materials. As for the novel, I am unsure if it states a death or birth date, which it might, though I have never read it. Like I said though, I can take a screenshots straight from the bonus materials to show you the "Family Tree" if you wish. Like you said though, I think it'd be best if you just let the IP know that he/she cannot change sourced information without his/her own source. Thanks. -- Victor  (talk)  01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to say thanks
.. for keeping an eye out for the chiropractic article. I am always pleased to see that you have kept those vandals at bay. -- <b style="color:#999900;">Dēmatt</b> (chat)  03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonas Salk
Hi, because you made a recent edit to Jonas Salk, I wanted to inform you that I am planning on bringing the article to FAC. Are you interested? Leranedo (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just got him on my vandal watch, as it's frequently vandalized for some reason. I don't think I could help bring to FA status.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About 366-degree geometry
Dear Dr Rubin

What do you mean "the article should fail on its own merit". May I ask you if you have taken the time to consider just a bit Alan Butler's theory. As a mathematician, don't you find it fascinating the Megalithic people could have been cognizant with a geometry which could have preceded ours (360-degree geometry)?

To sum things up: 360-degree geometry is known to have been "invented" in Sumer. Now Babylon, Assur and Nineveh are all located on Salt Lines locations, which means: if you trace Salt Lines all round the globe, you will find that Assur and Niniveh both are on 366-degree geometry parallels. What is more, they are located on the 36th and 37th parallels respectively (i.e. on each side of latitude 36.6 Megalithic degrees). Babylon is on a longitudinal line (just like Stonehenge), which means their respective longitudes are spaced by an integral number of degrees.

Isn't it tempting to think Babylon has been founded on its location AFTER the invention of the 366-degree geometry? 360-degree would then be a simplification of a geometry (366-degree geometry), itself ultimately based on a 366-day calendar.

The biggest Megalithic sites of Britain (Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury and West Kenneth Long Barrow) are all located along the same Salt Line. So is the biggest site in Scotland, the Ring of Brodgar. It is precisely located on the 60th 366-degree geometry parallel, and it was made of... exactly 60 standing stones!

If Butler is still not widely known it doesn't mean he hasn't hit on one of the greatest mathematical and historical discoveries of modern times.

I'd love to have your informed opinion on that. --Snicoulaud 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you (by whom I mean all those you have supported either set of "Salt Lines") done analysis as to whether the 366-degree "salt lines" pick up more ancient cities than 360-degree or 354-degree lines. If not, the "results" are virtually worthless, and we can consider them discredited per se, because no one else would have done that analysis.  Also, have you allowed for the ellipsoidal earth in your calculations?  I think that latitude lines can be offset up to about 10 arc minutes from where you might think they are. Consider the difference between "geodetic", "geodesic", and "geocentric" latitude.  (Yes, I've worked on geodesy projects before.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The amazing thing is that these Salt Lines virtually pick up most ancient capitals before Rome (at least the greatest), as well as related key sites, in the Old World, including Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury, West Kennet Long Barrow (Britain), the Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness in Orkney (Scotland), Babylon (and Baghdad, maybe coincidentally), Assur and Niniveh (Mesopotamia), Thebes (Valley of the Kings) and Abu Simbel (Egypt), Harappa (Indius Civilization), Mycenae, Argos, Tiryns, Dodona and Athens (Mycenian Greece), Hattusa (Hittite civ.) and Alesia (Gaul). As for the New World, Salt Lines also pick up THE MOST ANCIENT capitals of the first great civilizations, including San Lorenzo, Teotihuacan, Cuicuilco and even Chichen Itza (more recent, so it might just be coincidental) in Mexico, and Caral and Tiwanaku in Southern America! So what I just quoted are virtually all of the world's most ancient capitals of GREAT civilizations between the period 3100 BC-1200 BC (Old World), and c.2630 BC-400 BC (New World).


 * Let's follow your logic and see how many of these cities fall on the (Greenwich-based) modern 360-degree lines (with the same degree of accuracy, that is, with a margin of + or - 3 minutes of arc max.) and compare: the Ring of Brodgar, the Stenness Stones, Hattusa and Caral. The result is quite simple: 4 instead of 26. That is, 6.5 times less! Please explain me that! Add the funny "coincidence" mentioned last time that Brodgar doesn't stand on any line but precisely on the 60th parallel North (with 60 stones in the circle!), that Assur and Nineveh are located on the 36th and 37th parallels North (on each side of latitude 36.6 degrees) and that Teotihuacan is not on any line but on the 20th parallel North (!), it is starting to make a lot of "coincidences", isn't it?


 * The remark about the Earth being ellipsoidal, although apt, doesn't seem to be relevant in our case (the modern lines obviously take it into account and the 366-degree system has just been "modernly" established by extrapolating from them). Using the GPS positions of the sites and the new system of reference, the resulting errors are very small, if not tiny or existant at all.


 * The adjective "geocentric" doesn't seem to be relevant in our case. And as far as I know, "geodesic distances" are not relevant either. So the right answer would be geodetic latitudes and longitudes, that is, meridians and parallels in the same way as we have them today on Earth, except that in 366-degree geometry, the interval between lines is slightly shorter.--84.100.6.168 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)--Snicoulaud 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out in our latitude article, the difference between different definitions of latitude can be as large as 11 arc minutes (modern; 360) in temperate latitudes, so it's important which definition is used. "geocentric", "geodesic", and "geodetic" are my terms as used in my last geodesy project, "geocentric" is the angle between the line from the point to the center of the earth and the equatorial plane; "geodetic" is the angle between the normal to the ellipsoid (or, perhaps, the local vertical) and the equatorial plane (which is more likely if astronomical observations were used), and "geodesic" divides equally the distance along lines of longitude (more likely if "conventional" mapping was used).  As they differ by a number of minutes of arc, and the accuracy you were asserting above is ±3 minutes of arc, it makes a difference which system is used.  So — which system IS used.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr
 * I've just read the article on latitude and, although it doesn't refer to "geodesic" latitude, it is clear from both your explanation and the article that Salt Lines must probably been understood as "geodetic" latitudes or "common" latitudes (in the sense that these "common" latitudes refer to something similar as today but with 366 lines instead of 360). What is more it seems clear that, if Salt Lines are to be validated someday by historical science, they're very likely to have been developed from astronomical observations.
 * This being said, the definition of latitude is not particularly relevant for most of the locations I pointed out earlier, for the majority of them is located on longitudinal lines or meridians (which if I understand well are not affected by the rotundity of the Earth).
 * A little additional experiment I've just done. This time I "shoved" modern meridians 30 minutes east of Greenwich, just to see if I would pick up more of the 26 locations referred to earlier. I didn't. The parallels not moving by definition, I picked up a total of 4 cities (on parallels).
 * I tried again the experiment by shoving modern meridians 15 minutes east of Greenwich. This time I picked up 3 more locations (Assur, San Lorenzo and Tiwanako), which makes a total of 3 + 4 = 7 locations, i.e. still 3.7 times less than with 366-degree geometry. And I again tried, this time by shoving modern meridians 15 minutes west of Greenwich. That time I picked up 5 more locations (Mycenae, Argos, Tiryns, Athens and Dodona), which makes a total of 5 + 4 = 9 locations, i.e. 2.8 times less than with 366-degree geometry. But please note that all these locations are in Greece. These locations are located on 3 neighbouring Salt Lines so it is "normal" that in this case (in a small country like Greece) they adjust to the modern meridians, the distance between them being not very different from 366-degree geometry meridians when you consider a small interval of 3 or 4 lines. So the result of picking up so many cities in Greece in this case might be the consequence, if Butler is right, of these cities having been placed along Salt Lines in the first place.
 * So again, my question is: if not compelling to you, isn't the evidence starting to make you think a bit? Think of the primary importance of all the locations I pointed out earlier, and the mysterious fact that all of them are "picked up" by a single system of reference. Doesn't it seem mathematically unlikely, or even highly unlikely, that this be the mere result of chance? I'm not trying to convince you. On the opposite, I need to have the objective view of a mathematician on that. Snicoulaud (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And your answer would be?--Snicoulaud (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's too much selection bias. We need a list of ancient sites, either selected by someone not affiliated with either the 366 or 360 theory, or selected before the theories appeared, and then run an adaptive analysis to select the optimum number of "salt lines", assuming (3 arc minutes) a 5% margin of error.  (The adaptive analysis needs to adjust the longitude lines for each number of lines.)  If that produces "366", there might be something there.  If it produces "360", that would support the other theory.  If it produces 354, 370, or some other nearby number, that discredits the theories completly.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Research
What is it about the overly reactionary WP:OWN in these related articles? You have not even given any explanation, which is highly inappropriate. Please give an explanation for your revert. Have you even consulted the source? Either you haven't read it or you haven't read it properly. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:On RM
A you created, Template:On RM,  been marked for deletion as  deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:CREnumber
Looking at it again, you're right, I erred. IceKarma&#x0950; 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)
Thanks for your help on this article. I took off the questionable picture, but expect the "owners" to react soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins
Hi Arthur Rubin. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee    t / c  23:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A/An Historian
Hey there. I noticed you undid my changes to the David Irving article in which I changed all mention of "an historian" to "a historian". You did mention in your edit summary that "a historian" is technically correct, I noticed. Anyway ... I was trying to get some consistency in the article. When you reverted my edit, you didn't also change all mention of "a historian" to "an historian", so again, there is inconsistency. I don't really mind which choice is used ("a" vs "an"), but consistency should be upheld. Which do you think should be used? I noticed, when looking at the article for "Historian", that "a historian" is used. This is why I changed it to what I did. So ... let me know what you think. <font color="#0066BB" style="font-weight:bold">Wikidsoup <font color="#EEAA11">[talk]  03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation request in Non-standard analysis
A recent edit posted a fact tag on a particular claim about the purported advantages of non-standard analysis. I'm not sure what would be considered a valid citation (statements by Halmos who was certainly no fan of this particular subject or Connes?). Although I am an aficionado of nonstandard analysis, I thought this claim was completely non-controversial (in fact I originally put it in I believe).--CSTAR (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegas
Hi. I can understand if you want a disamb page for Las Vegas but that is not what you reverted to. Can you please explain why you want redundant articles on the city; Las Vegas and Las Vegas, Nevada? --Alfadog 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an extended sub-disambiguation page for Las Vegas, Nevada. I may have made a mistake, but this article was serving as a modified Las Vegas, Nevada (disambugation) page.  That title doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, though.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a disamb page but the article there should be removed and a standard disamb page made. The talk page already mentions a discrepancy between the two articles and that is the risk of having two articles, the other being that a reader might not realize we have a more extensive article elsewhere and that is a disservice. I will work on it as time permits if that is agreeable to you. --Alfadog 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, we already have Las Vegas (disambiguation) and if we need a bit more drill-down then I think it should be done there and Las Vegas can redirect to that disamb page. How does that sound? --Alfadog 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The principle of least suprise suggests that Las Vegas should be or redirect to a disambiguation page with the most common meanings, which are these 3. I think it would be best to hold off on changing the direction of the article, without asking for comment on (at least) the Las Vegas talk page, those of the three related articles, and Las Vegas (disambiguation).  It seems to have been stable for at least a month.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are over 500 incoming links (although some may be from templates) suggests we should be careful about changing the meaning. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I would rather be WP:BOLD. I really think this is a no-brainer. Expand the Las Vegas (disambiguation) and redirect Las Vegas there. I doubt we would get much in the way of comments and would rather just work it out between us if you have any objection. Re the links, the redirect will handle those and I can look for any templates that need changing. --Alfadog
 * On 3rd thought and looking at some of the links, I think it better to leave it in place but strip out most of the dup content and reformat it as a standard disamb page. How about I will do that and see if it looks better to you. --Alfadog 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I pared it down, let's see if anyone objects. But after doing it I am more convinced than ever that it should simply redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada as that is what is expected when one enters "Las Vegas" in the search box. This adds an unnecessary step. --Alfadog 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Day care sex abuse hysteria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. N at han   19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

SRA article
Arthur, the SRA article was in much better shape before a handful of axe-grinders showed up and started putting in fringe sources and adding original research and OR by synthesis. That's why I reverted to the older version (mid-October). I think there is a coordinated attack on the SRA article by a handful of fringe individuals and I would be interested to know if Bio, "Abuse truth", and "West world" know each other in real life. 168.30.196.235 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me the date of the version you reverted to, and I'll check the history around that point to see if I concur. It should be pointed out, however, that some of the dispute on recovered memory therapy is that one group is using fringe 1980s and 1990s papers, while the other is using fringe recent papers.  Neither group seems to have good sources.  So far, for the most part, my work in those articles is noting AT's rewriting of history; I haven't had time to see if the historical articles she uses have been contradicted by modern research.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just today, I've dug up a bunch of papers on SRA from JSTOR, which catalogs academic articles published in journals. As I suspected, the consensus of these articles is that SRA is a crock of bull. Once I log in at home under my account, I will work on incorporating this information into the article. I already removed a few of the worst POV statements and fringe theories. 168.30.196.235 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Pseudo...., Integrative Manual Therapy
Is it ok to say "Integrative Manual Therapy" is a technique "utilized by physical therapists?" If not please explain. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not, unless the source is reliable and states that. The QW links you supplied earlier did not state that.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

links
Hello, in Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations I grouped all of the articles that have been spun off the original article into summary style. I did this to assist the reader. Your edit summary said that it was probably a violation of the MoS. I've looked at the MoS, and I don't see any violation. Can you point me to the section that you think this violates? Thank you, Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it violates WP:ALSO, but I could be mistaken. If you re-add them, I probably won't revert again.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a recap of the subarticles, and was not (strictly speaking) in the "see also". But I have not added them back, but I do think it helps the reader.  From WP:MOS: " Links should add to the user's experience..".  Thank you.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivilty on RMT
I find your edit, Talk:Recovered memory therapy, 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) "I could answer the paedophilia question, but I cannot without writing it as a personal attack against one or the other editors, so I won't. I think Biaothanatoi should be able to figure it out from that, though.", extremely uncivil. Implying that one or more of your fellow editors are engaged in paedophilia is, to me, unacceptable and not an action I will let go by. I suggest that you do what you can to apologise personally to the editors involved, apologise on the discusion page and then get the insult removed as best you can. SmithBlue (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The intended implication was that one of the editors accused editors who remove his (almost certainly irrelevant) sections from RMT and SRA of supporting paedophilla. (I suppose that relates to observed conduct on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be a violation.)  But, thinking it over, it could easily be misinterpreted.  What do you suggest I do? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With what you explain here, I'd suggest making it clear that you intended no incivility and leave it at that. Editing at RMT looks like hell to me - I'd be looking to get an editor or two excluded from editing that article. SmithBlue (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rescue
As you probably anticipated, what you did was my next step. I had intended to raise the issue on the template talk page first, but the TfD gives plenty of ammo to use. Also, I would have moved all the rescue templates in use to talk pages. I've done so now. Mango juice talk 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was writing from work, and had to get back to work.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Predicted as much
Could you explain the revert on Institute for Creation Research? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems biased, and possibly factually inaccurate as to the origins. No sources are presented, but it says in the new version that it split from Creation Science Research Center.  For a couple of the third-paragraph changes, neither version is justified or NPOV, but I didn't feel like deleting the entire sentence(s) or clause(s) in question.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Biased? Really?  Maybe you could be more specific where you see bias, though the point about identifying sourcing is well taken.  Normally disputed content is marked with a fact tag rather than a wholesale revert of an extensive edit.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)  Also please note, the content you restored has no inline citations either. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, biased. It implies that YEC has a basis in Christianity, which is false.  The basis (in this context) is Biblical inerrancy.  (The new version also repeats ICR being Christian in an additional location.  If it's in the lead, it shouldn't also be in the #Background section.)  Does anyone else think it's important the ICR is Christian?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think it's important? It's no secret they do--they frequently characterize the work they do as "ministry". It was formed in a Christian college, and self-claims faithfulness to a Christian belief and mission throughout--in its tenets, its faculty statements, to its supporters, etc.  It's of importance as well to independent historians of the subject, including Numbers and Larson, as well as to its critics such as Scott and Pigliucci.  Generally the lead paragraph serves as a stand alone overview of the material that follows, and little to nothing in it should appear there by itself without tying into the fuller development of the subject which follows it.  It's hardly "biased" to characterize this as a Christian organization. I really don't understand the objection that there is some claim in the edit that YEC itself is a Christian concept.  The ICR is in truth all of it, committed to a sectarian Christian view, YEC, and Biblical inerrancy. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Logic programming
Are the issues that you and others were discussing back in April 07 resolved? It's not clear from discussion. (Would you mind replying at Talk:Logic programming?) CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Business logic spam
I see you've run across the person who's been adding content to this and other articles inappropriately. I've dragged them onto my talk page, and should be able to educate them about appropriate addition of content and how to use the talk page. I'm not qualified to judge the notability of the item, however. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. I've already blocked them once for spamming.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Heim theory
During the mid-1950s, Burkhard Heim verbally presented his theory to two sessions of the International Astronuatical Federation and in writing to the Gravity Research Foundation. It was then published in 1959 in an obscure rocketry journal. In each case, he emphasized the propulsion aspect of his work. Heim's work was initially presented as a propulsion theory. Tcisco (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why talk to me? I haven't been an active editor in Heim Theory for some time.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comments stemmed from the edit information cited on the Revision History page of Heim theory for 30 october 2007, 23:44 UTC. Tcisco (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That was unsourced.  If you could provide a source.... &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Recovered Memory Therapy
Hi, thanks for your comment on my user page.

I also recently put a few suggestions on the RMT talk page, as to some ways that it could be improved.

A fair bit of outdated and inaccurate information has been creeping in, and I think quite a bit of further work is needed. I must confess, I'm relatively new at WP editing, so taking it one step at a time. Cheers Matt

MatthewTStone 07:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I E-mailed the FMSF asking for references to counter some of User:Abuse truth's staetments, and I've got a few, now. I'll have to work out exactly how to insert them.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I am putting this in the right place. If not, I apologize to Arthur Rubin. I am new. Why check with FMSF. There is no DSM classification for repressed memory.

19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)72.49.115.250 (talk)


 * Interesting. I don't remember who claimed there was a DSM-IV classification for repressed memory, if it's not User:Abuse truth, but you might note that on the appropriate talk page.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Arthur, I've been watching the ongoing to and fro in the "Trauma Model" section, but not sure what to do about it. I might have a crack at summarising what AT is trying to insert, as a compromise. A while ago, I did put a sentence at the end "A related but distinct topic to that of memories being recovered in therapy, is the theory of repressed memory..." I hoped that would serve to re-direct people to the precise topic of RM, making AT's lengthy additions unnecessary, but to no avail. Also I have a feeling the whole term "Trauma Model of Psychopathology" itself might need a source, as I'm not entirely sure there are a separate group of therapists who formally work under that model. Could be wrong on that though. Cheers Matt. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Charles T. Le
Hello Arthur. Please could you look at the edits of this recently arrived user to Florentin Smarandache, where he blanked whole sourced sections on physics and poetry without justification, and Progress in Physics, which he has nominated for deletion. I have left a welcome and a message on his talk page. I am no fan of FS, but all these edits seem to have broken every WP rule. He is not editing, he is censoring. I reverted his changes to Florentin Smarandache. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He has now reverted his blanks without discussion and has not responded to my advice. I have given a second warning. If he continues like this, he is effectively behaving as a vandal (even if well-intentioned). Please could you do something about him (for example like encouraging him to contribute content)? Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have identified the vandal here. Mathsci (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles T. Le is the user name of a former sockpuppet of Florentin Smarandache on wikipedia . Details were provided by User:Tim Starling here . Please do a check user to trace his account. If he is indef banned the nomination of Progress in Physics should be disqualified. Smarandache obviously does not like what WP says about him or his journals. Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I have reported this probable sockpuppetry/disruption on WP:AN/I. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch and reverts
Thanks for your note at my talk page. And yes, I'm holding off moving the barnstar to my user page, until after there's a little evidence that I actually helped :-) I had assumed that 3RR referred to reverting the same item 3 times, not the same editor, but I'll go read the policy now. Actually I mentioned 3RR in the comment with the sly intent that ScienceApologist will be "outvoted" by several editors contributing 2 reverts each, but I'm not so sure (yet) that the hostility level is that high. Remarkable place, wiki, huh? Pete St.John (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, 3RR refers to 3 reverts on the same article, regardless of section or editor reverted. Be careful.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I had made the same assumption about 3RR - that it only counts for the same revert - not the case, it applies to any reverts made to a single article in one 24 hour period by a single editor. I learned that lesson the hard way! Further, note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if 3RR has not been violated. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on unsourced materials
Thanks for getting the link to go straight there - I still havent got all the tech stuff happening - or all the other stuff either for that matter. Am reading about disruptive editors though and am willing to follow protocols if we find disruption. (explicitly: I do not see you being in this category.) Would like to see RMT editing being only slightly interesting rather than a blood sport. SmithBlue (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice
I am curious about your thought on how I should respond to this roundabout (and false) meatpuppetry accusation: here:. I tried to ask Ronz nicely to revert, but he wrote it off as harrasment: Why do I come to you with this? Well, you're an admin and since you tend to be on the other side of the fence from me content-wise, I thought it might be good to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Arggggh. I don't think think you're meatpuppets, merely fellow travelers, although the timing in one of the instances is suggestive.  Even then, taking over from another editor when they are about to hit 3RR is not necessarily bad.  I've requested help in the article or project talk page a number of times when I was about to hit 3RR and I thought it clear that consensus was on my side.  But I don't really have any suggestions for you.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pie
Hello. I just want to give you some pie for making me laugh hard. I was browsing, and found your comment, "I remember that happening. As you seem not to believe that false memories exist, that should be adequate until citations can be provided." That's the funniest thing I've seen here. Very clever. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith
Dear Arthur:

If you had taken 15 seconds to follow the external link in Golden ratio before you reverted this edit, you would have seen that the edit you reverted corrected an error, so your reversion restored the error. (Math professor Ron Knott is in fact the author of the external link; Don Knotts was Andy Griffith's sidekick.) Of course, I respect those who patrol for vandalism, realize the importance and frustration of reverting vandalism, and am aware that anons commit a disproportionate amount of the vandalism that plagues Wikipedia. I am also aware of the excellent work you do as an admin and an editor (I follow some of the same subjects that you do). Nevertheless, many (perhaps a majority of) anon edits are in good faith, and many of those are actually improvements. We all have the duty to assume good faith, and Wikipedia is the better for our doing so.

A few days ago, a newbie added a factually correct entry to 2070s, that the U.S. tricentennial will occur on July 4, 2076. While I was in the process of trying to improve the entry (adding a link to Bicentennial and explaining that the tricentennial would be the 300th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence), you deleted the entry without explanation. I discarded what I was doing and deferred to what I assumed to be your considered and more experienced judgment. An anon has since restored the entry in the same poor form that you and I both found it.

I hope you do not mind this suggestion, and I do appreciate the pressures on your time, but please check the facts before you revert or delete. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 09:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry about Ron. I don't think I have direct access to that journal, so I can't verify.  About the anniversaries, WikiProject Years is fairly clear that anniversaries should not be listed unless associated with a known commemoration.  WikiProject Time is silent on the matter, but I assume that the same rules should apply, otherwise, for example, each future millennium would have a millennial anniversary of most significant events, thereby cluttering the articles.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal complaint filed
Arthur Rubin, I have filed an informal complaint against you here for intimidation and assuming bad faith. Please understand that we have to work together as a community if we're going to make a community project work. We may not always agree, but we can respect each other. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I don't feel any need to respond at the moment, as the first response seems to agree that my actions were based on a reasonable interpretation of your message.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quackery
An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. &mdash;Whig (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On QW - JSE's peer-review
Why is JSE's peer-review in question. Could you provide a reference? Anthon01 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 9 has a lot of discussion about JSE. (I think 8 and 7 also had some discussion about it.) As far as I can tell, the consensus is that Kaufmann's article was not reviewed, for a number of reasons:  (1) JSE claims to be peer-reviewed, but there is an editorial denying the validity of peer review.  (2) The time from submission until publication is too short for anyone to have actually reviewed the article.  (3) finally, it's all Kaufmann's opinion, anyway, so there is nothing to review, other than his selection of sources.  On the other hand, Kaufmann may personally be a WP:RS, as is allowed in the WP:SPS section.  On the gripping hand, WP:SPS specifically states it doesn't apply to articles about living persons, and Quackwatch is frequently confused with Stephen Barrett, so, perhaps Kaufmann can't be used. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Feb. 8

 * Someone put in hoax entries which is why I reverted it, although I probably should have just removed the hoax entries. I may have just been tired. JuJube (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse
Just dropping you a line to say good luck with Satanic ritual abuse. I gave up on it a while back and de-watchlisted it. The only thing I can say was I actually was making progress negotiating between AT, Bt, IMJ and the other sporadic editors towards a consensus, then everything went to hell. From what I've seen, with lots of calm talk page discussion everyone can move towards a consensus (and politely), but I don't know what the chances are now. Now it looks like all hope of a consensus version is blown to hell and there's going to be much disgusted hand-waving. And blocks, page protection, personal attacks, tears, sweat, gore... Good luck, I wish I could offer a bucket of patience as well. WLU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubin, regarding your warning on my userpage.
 * The links between CSICOP, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and the pro-paedophile publication Paidika have been in the public domain since the mid-1990s and they constitute verifiable historical information that are clearly relevant to the assessment of the credibility of CSICOP. I am not to blame for the fact that an organisations associations reflect poorly on that organisation.
 * Your editing history on the Satanic Ritual Abuse page is tendentious and unconstructive, and your treatment of Abuse Truth has been particularly insulting. You've failed to presume good faith in relation to any editor with a different POV to you. I don't know why you remain so active on the page, since you have done little beyond fermenting conflict and reverting other editors changes without grounds. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I was going to say on your talk page, any association between the the FMSF and "the pro-paedophile" (misspelled) movement is in your mind. The movement may use the FMSF, but the FMSF is certainly as scientific, unbiased, and in support of children, as your AAA group.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that Ralph Underwager, the founder of the FMSF, was "scientific" and "unbiased" when he stated that paedophilia is a "responsible" lifestyle choice, or that most women sexually assaulted in childhood enjoyed the experience? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation
An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wenatchee_sex_ring&action=history

(cur) (last) 07:42, 19 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (I'm sorry, I really can't take YOUR word for it; Undid revision 178869477 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:14, 19 December 2007 Abuse truth (Talk | contribs) (8,402 bytes) (disagree - they are obviously authentic newspaper articles in the pictures) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:35, 19 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (The sources are UNTRACABLE newspaper articles, and need to be verified. Undid revision 178861784 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:29, 19 December 2007 Abuse truth (Talk | contribs) (8,402 bytes) (the sources are reliable ones - newspaper articles) (undo)

(cur) (last) 16:20, 18 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (Change to, then if you won't accept the more rational tag. Undid revision 178643980 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo) Abuse truth (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism
Many thanks for reminding me about the 3RR rule in relation to a reversion I made on the State-sponsored terrorism article. My edit followed the past week's concerted attack by two South African editors on Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 — mainly the South Africa luggage swap theory — and other articles linked to it such as State sponsored terrorism. Their campaign is evidenced by the edit histories of Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 and by this extract from User talk:Deon Steyn:
 * "Thanks for your help with Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Any chance you can lend a hand with some of the articles that have been linked to it?  Also see State-sponsored terrorism.  Cheers  Socrates2008 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy applies to this sort of concerted editing, and should be grateful for your views as an Administrator on whether it should be tolerated.Phase4 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to clutter your talk page further or waste you time, but this user (Phase1/2/4 / PJHaseldine) has now been blocked:
 * RFCU
 * Suspected sock puppets/PJHaseldine
 * Thanks for your time and effort in calming things down. --Deon Steyn (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?
Your comment: "It didn't say "some point out" before, with that version, it needs {who}, and it needs to be a mainstream {who}". I added "some point out" to address your concern that it looked like NIST said it. As for "who". There must be 4 billion people in the world that could support it as it is a statement of fact similar to "fire is hot" (obvious to anyone who checks) so pick any you like.

Your comment: "Added two more tags; faster is FALSE, even if the 600 mi/h is true, as the planes appeared to have been in a power dive, and fuel requires a relevant cite." See Collapse of the World Trade Center and compare for yourself. The source for the 600 is NIST so unless you assume NIST lies then you have to assume 600 is true. 600 is faster than 440 and 540 the last time I went to school so calling "faster" "false" is ...well....false. The fuel? NIST accepts that each plane had around 10,000 gl when they hit. The study reference NIST found indicated 23,000 gl. You are asking for a "relevant cite" to prove that 23,000 is more than 10,000???????? Is the local kindergarten a relevant cite?

This sentence has been in the artical a long time with no problems so why is it such a big deal all of a sudden and being reverted for such lame reasons? I expected better of an experienced editor such as yourself. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a perfect example of SYN. Source one says the relevant speed is 600 mi/h, which NIST found, but didn't necessary accept.  NIST says the actual speed is 540 mi/h.  That the relevant speed is faster than the actual speed is SYN.  Also, furthermore, (although this is WP:OR), the speed is irrelevant.  The kinetic energy of impact is the relevant factor toward physical damage to the building, and these planes are heavier than a 707.  (What NIST said the actual model of the plane used in the study they found wasn't reported in the article, so I assume it's the 707 which they were pointed to in the study they couldn't find.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

“''The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964 (obtained by NIST), described the findings of an analysis of the effects of an aircraft impact. The studies mathematical calculations covered 21,000 pages: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''” (Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132)(NIST, 2005, p.70-71.) Wayne (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this reference ok?

Rescue template changes
Please do not be quite so bold in changing a template for a project which you apparently have issues with. Unless all templates are now being treated in such a manner please cease and desist. You have been asked nicely twice now to engage the issue on the talk page and I hope you either leave the issue alone or take your proposed modifications to the talk page. Benjiboi 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on the talk page, the TfD result was specified that the template may not be used on article pages. Indicating that it may is clearly improper.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Rescue
Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fingerboard AfD
Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment is only a reply to yours, not intended as a !vote. I was just pointing out that it being listed in multiple languages could have been due to mechanical translations, which could be speedy-deleted on the other Wikipedia if it were brought to their attention.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Brain Wave
I am writing about the article Brain Wave The reason I wrote that they were similar is because in pebble in the sky the synapsifier lowers the resistance of the Milan sheets in the brain to make Schwartz (the main character) more intelligent. This sounded similar to what happen in Brain Wave. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to being this up, I am inexperienced with wikipedia. Thank you. The Isiah (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I missed that.  Still, we need a reliable source that makes the connection.  (We also need a WP:RS which says something about the book.  I still lean toward deletion, per the deletion policy, unless you can find some comments about the book.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones
Youtube is never a reliable source, even as a primary source. I'm worried about the extreme PoV of your edit summaries. I'll delete it myself in awhile. Cheers though! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is a source, Alex's oqn archives. But, whether on youtube or not, Alex is not a reliable source about what he said.  (This would be the case whether or not he had a reputation for truthfulness (or truthiness, for that matter).)  Your edit, on the other hand, falls under WP:POINT at best, and is pure WP:VANDALISM unless you think the article is better with the unsourced section.  If you don't fix it with 5 minutes, an AN/I report will be filed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit summaries were wholly unacceptable PoV and did not specifiy a valid reason for the deletion, which could encourage other editors into naively thinking the source was solid and you deleted it only through extreme PoV. Hence, I was trying to stabilize the article and if I have led you to believe I violated WP:POINT, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't delete material with edit summaries which cite an unsupportable reason for your edits. If this happens again, to avoid any misunderstanding that I might be editing only to make a snarky point, I'll either leave a note here or on the article talk pageMeanwhile you have edit warred and more or less violated WP:3RR. Edit warring is never acceptable. Also, please read WP:VANDALISM for an understanding of what is considered vandalism on this wiki. Your remark about vandalism is unacceptable and in itself a violation of WP policy. As for your threats, I'll leave it up to others to read them. Either way, I am sincerely sorry if I have upset you. You may want to let cooler heads have a look at this for now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * Why does intentionally restoring material which you believe to be in violation of Wikipedia policies not fall in that category? If you were to revert and then immmediately undo the reversion, giving a reason you consider better, that would be different.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. I thought this edit summary was a very clear hint the edit would not stand for long. Second, I was sincerely trying to enhance the integrity of the article by not accepting what I viewed as unsupportable edit summaries (which I also explained above). I'll handle this through the talk pages if it comes up again. Either way, I think we do agree the cited source itself doesn't rise to WP:V or WP:RS and I hope you understand my worries about how edit summaries can sway subsequent edits. Third, WP:VANDALISM is often mistakenly cited by highly sincere editors of controversial articles. You should have assumed good faith. Given all this, I think this flare up is over now, sorry it even got that far. All the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

3rr
You are now on the edge of violating WP:3RR. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User Talk - Definition of Mathematics
I submitted an addendum in the past, proposing a more pragmatic, simpler definition to descibe the value, power and beauty of mathematics and quantitative, scientific knowledge in real life activities. That definition was sticken out, and a reference to some higher "math" entity was invoked. I can not remember the time of that rejection, but it happened. Again, and even though I am a mathematics, science, engineering professional, instructor and credentialed teacher, my opinion, and the fact that students are suffering from much of the arrogance of our mathematics establishment defining their curriculum was not respected. Perhaps if I trusted Wikipedia more, I could resubmit it again, and stand into a dispute with whoever does not agree, as necessary.

Thank you very much for your attention.

F Razo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.11.138 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)