User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2012

Thanks!
Thank you for cleaning up my work on the closed form half-angle formula. KlappCK (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic IP at infinitesimal
Hi - I'm looking back at the block I placed on the antisemitic IP editor you were stuck dealing with over at infinitesimal. I don't know quite where my mind was this morning when I only placed a 72-hour block. (I think I've been dealing with too many trolls on very dynamic IPs, where longer blocks don't make a difference.) If he comes back when the block expires and he gets into any kind of disruptive behavior (whether it's more personal attacks or just continuing to push his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I'm-smarter-than-Einstein self-published papers) please don't hesitate to notify me and I'll place a suitably lengthy new block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
Hi Arthur Rubin,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shuipzv3 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Requested protection of movie articles
I've requested the three movie articles be protected. Seems like a waste of time to continue otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And they've been quickly protected. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cato editing
I edited the Cato page because I knew I'd seen the date and reference that it was originally founded by Charles Koch before 1977, from an article in The Nation. I looked for references for the earlier date and found more references in the blog pages of the Baltimore Sun. Then I found the Nation's source, the Hodai article, an expanded version of one originally published in In These Times and picked up by many other web publications afterward. Hodai's cite is to PDFs of the source documents that he has posted on his own website: dbapress.com

He is an exhaustive researcher. He has researched the Kochs before such as when he published his expose on the American Legislative Exchange Council and Arizona's SB 1070, the "Breathing While Brown" legislation, including the role of the now-recalled state Senate president Russ Pearce. He was the original author who discovered the entire story, published in March or June 2010, though it was repeated without attribution by a Phoenix TV reporter who was given credit for and accepted unearned national accolades for the research. I forget which channel it was where the guy worked, but he appeared on television in NY to receive plaudits for his supposed investigative reporting. In October of 2010, Laura Sullivan, a national NPR reporter from DC, expanded somewhat on Hodai's original, months old story and gave Hodai full credit and attribution for his work. Subsequent to that, NPR's "Talk of the Nation" had them both on a show about SB 1070, for a half-hour segment that I heard while driving somewhere.

Hodai's work has never been questioned by anyone, save I think, for a Texas hustler whom he exposed and who enlisted a "reputation defender," James Dozier, who threatened both him and the original publisher of another piece, this one on for-profit prisons, In These Times. The Texan threatened a number of other print and on-line publications and I think a Texas NPR reporter and some activists. He got no retractions or apologies, with responses requesting specifics as to what Dozier contended were inaccurate statements, as the guy had no case. I don't believe any of them ever got any examples of what was supposedly untrue from Dozier or his client.

You accept NY Times material without reservation, however, despite, i.e., the extensive planted propaganda under the bylines of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, the confabulations by Jason Blair, etc.

If that's not enough for you, please tell me exactly what you require. If this is sufficient, please revert the undo you did.

Thank youActivist (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A reputation for muckraking does not require a reputation for accuracy; and, as this involves living people, the publisher must have the reputation for accuracy for it to count. You still need to include the organizations' statements in the lead if they contradict even a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the below on my way out of the office a couple of hours ago, but for some reason it didn't post. When I got back there was a note from Wikipedia that my posting failed and that I needed to try to repost it or log out and log back in. It has the info you want. This writer has the original documents posted on his site, as below:Activist (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's your source documents: http://dbapress.com/source-materials-archive/koch-money-the-corporate-cash-that-oils-the-right-wing-%E2%80%9Cthink-tank%E2%80%9D-machine-koch-industries-americans-for-prosperity-americans-for-prosperity-foundation-reason-foundation-cato/cato-institutecharles-koch-foundation-incorporation-papers-and-bylaw Activist (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to the Cato Institute webpage. I've provided documentation previously.

Cato was clearly founded in (December) 1974, as I'd maintained, but the date that you and I accepted as credible (1977), as it came from Cato itself and was found at other sources, was also in error, as was your contention attributed to Charles Koch that it was founded in 1980, a date you supplied, if you are correct and haven't confused the similarly named entities. The name change from the Charles Koch Foundation to Cato occurred by action of the Foundation's board at its meeting of July 7th and 8th, 1976, with the amended documents filed with the Kansas Secretary of State on July 28th. I corrected the erroneous (1977) date as well along with the revert of your undo.Activist (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now Mr. Rubin, it appears that there is another editor who has seen your caution on the Cato Institute page and was moved to agree with you without bothering to check the documents I'd provided.

I am baffled as to why this can't be dealt with responsibly. Will you please remove that caution and undo the reverts, unless you can provide legitimate information as to why you feel the information I corrected is actually correct?

I left this for the latest editor to follow your lead:

January 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please see the talk page Jac 16888  Talk 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I have left a comment on both the article talk page before your last revert and RFPP in reply to your latest. I am very concerned by your behaviour with regards to this IP, by the looks of it all over the presence of a single wikilink, it is not what I would expect from an admin with your experience-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To begin with, there are at least two editors who agree that the link shouldn't be there. The anon has an established tendency toward adding Wikilinks with no or minimal relationships article, incorrect Wikilinks to subjects with the same name as the Wikilink but a completely different subject, etc.  Once he starts adding them, he never stops, regardless of arguments presented.
 * And yes, I do follow him. Blocking him has been proposed, but it's been determined it's impossible because we'd have to block the entire city of Kalamazoo at the ISP to do so.  It's not Wikistalking to revert even an established editor who fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm misreading this but the way I see it, Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings is about some american thingy, created by the president in an Executive order. Executive order is about order's given by a head of government, i.e. the president. That doesn't seem to be incorrect or unrelated to me-- Jac 16888  Talk 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rational persons might differ, but Executive Order 13514 is already linked in the lead. A link to Executive order (note correct capitalization) would be superfluous.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that, doesn't tell me, as a non-american, or anyone else what an executive order is though-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to challenge the block; however, in fairness, the IP-hopping editor should also be blocked for 24 hours. His current IP assignment seems to have expired about 25 minutes ago (about 8 minutes after my block), so there's no way to block or warn except to watch for the pattern of edits, or to block the entire city of Kalamazoo, Michigan.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on ANI, I didn't block the IP because he hadn't edited since 11 (UTC); another admin has semied the article, however... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the IP is not back yet, but he probably will be, shortly, unless he's gone to class. Most of the edits were from a library or a school library in Kalamazoo, but their IP isn't static, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The last IP assignment that I can see is, rather than the last editor to the Zero-Net article, . — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review of block. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion 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 discussion page. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing Cato Institute
I provided a URL to the website that contained corrections to entries on the Cato site. I provided an extensive rationale supporting my original edits to the original undoer, Arthur Rubin, prior to your latest revision/undo. I provided further information citing the specific documents. It seems that you, and he, find those publications for which that author writes to be less than reliable for purely arbitrary reasons. I have provided the URL for the original PDF articles of incorporation documents that verify the accuracy of my edits. Still you chose to undo my edits, reverting to the demonstrably incorrect information. I don't understand why your insistence on retaining and preserving misinformation is so important to you. Perhaps you and Rubin (I'll copy this to his Talk page) can explain?

The Koch brothers employ "minders" who scrub any (Wikipedia) pages referring to them in any way of any less than positive (even neutral) information. I don't see any indication that you're in their employ, at least from looking at the most recent page listing of your editing efforts. So, I'm baffled as to what your agenda is? Did you look at the sources I provided, or just do a whimsical undo?Activist (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the source documents your requested have been provided, could you remove your caution or block (not sure what it's called) and/or restore my edits with the URL I provided or replace them with your own language that reflects the documents? Thank you. Activist (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

List of power stations in Greece
I have undone your move of List of power stations in Greece to List of renewable power stations in Greece. In your edit summary you stated there was "no mention of NON-renewable power stations" However, the section Other Thermal lists a large number of fossil fuel powered stations. These fuels, including oil, gas and coal are considered non-renewable, which contradicts your edit summary. Lmatt (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

XLinkBot
Please have a look at my comment at User talk:XLinkBot. I think an admin may need to stop the bot. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Shiftchanges comment
On the other hand, accusing someone of lying more than approaches a WP:NPA violation. :) The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was lying; I said his post contained lies. I didn't mean to imply that they were his lies; I think he's just repeating them from inadequately edited Wikipedia pages.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian republic referendum, 1999
OK, so explain what do you mean. SO far your deletes make no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have primary sources supporting (some of) the facts in your added paragraph, but no sources about its potential significance. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The significance is logically implied. It is not necessary to have primary source to show something is significant or not: rule A7, it is sufficient to claim significance. Also, notability does not apply within article but only to the article as a whole. I have nonetheless accepted some of your comments and removed allegedly subjective content. The first sentence is supported by the evidence referenced in the second sentence ie: 11% yes vote is not a majority of population - obvious. Then the 11% is also questioned as overestimate due to plural voting - an accepted fact with primary source. I have removed the finer details of plural voting, as that can be looked up by following the reference. Citation 16 is from AUSTLII - the primary, most comprehensive source of all legal documents in Australia. The paper published in Adelaide Law Review by the foremost constitutional scholar proves that debate on the subject exists and defines its extent and significance. The author argues that the Constitution and the rule of law under it, despite its undemocratic origins, has been endorsed by the 'Tradition of Acceptance'. NO claim is made that the Constitution is not valid, only that a debate exists on the subject and the Preamble, had it been accepted, could have settled that point beyond dispute and make it law - common knowledge: s128 of the Constitution. I will insert citation to that effect. comment added by Monkyx (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
 * I have initiated talk on the subject on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Preamble, perhaps others can step up with more views on the subject... Monkyx (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
 * You are misinterpreting so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I don't know where to begin.
 * db-a7 only applies to articles, not to sections of articles.
 * Notability is not required within articles, but significance and relevance to the subject is.
 * You have not even suggested why it's significant or relevant to the referendum; it might be significant or relevant to an article on the Australian Constitution. Reference 16 does not support the referendum being relevant to the "legitimacy" of the constitution.
 * Please read the guideline on WP:SYNTHESIS. At best, many of the sentences in your paragraph are sourced to reliable sources, but the connection between the sentences is &mdash; I hesitate to say "nonsense", but it certainly requires sourcing.  The connection of the paragraph to the referendum is solely in the unsourced last sentence.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The connection of the paragraph to the referendum is solely in the unsourced last sentence" - actually it's in the first sentence now just for you, re 'significance', although any change to the Constitution (change only happens via referenda) is obviously significant, otherwise there would be no referendum. Any changes subject to s128 become a new supreme law, every word is interpreted and affects the court system, but that's common knowledge here. You inability to see the obvious connection between the demonstrably undemocratic origins (by today's criteria) of the constitution and the 1999 preamble proposal is inexplicable, or... you are just playing. BTW what is your interest in Australian constitutional law? You are taking a rather invasive approach to a distant subject. Anyway, review your tags after my changes and lets see what others have to contribute. This is not ought to be a two man competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My interest in Australian constitutional law relates to your disruption of Talk:Stanislaw Burzynski; your added paragraph in Australian republic referendum, 1999 is not much better in terms of violation of Wikipedia policies, although it doesn't appear to violate WP:BLP. And the connection of the (proposed) preamble to the "demonstrably" undemocratic origins has not been made.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The connection to "demonstrably undemocratic" is in the vote numbers duly sourced. So your interest is not in the Constitutional Law but in being vexatious. Besides, I have made this comment over a year ago and nobody had issues with it except you and one more editor months ago. I thought my Burzynski comment was relevant, sorry you disagree but i guess there are limits to human consensus.
 * The connection to "demonstrably undemocratic" is pure WP:OR; I was going to say WP:SYNTHESIS, but there are too many unsourced steps. My interest here is in maintaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the meaning of which you seem to have no idea.  If you are a new editor, your confusion is excusable.  If you can provide a reliable source for the claim that the intent of the preamble was to justify the Constitution, then much of the paragraph could be recovered.  As it stands, there's no "there" there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that the "intent" of the preamble was to justify the Constitution. I claim it is a legal fact that subject to s128 of the Constitution the new preamble would become part of the supreme law and as such would quell any claims of invalidity arising from to low voter participation in the Federation referenda of 1900. It is self-evident that a statement "we commit to this constitution" being part of the supreme law is a legally binding pledge of all citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "intent" is needed, or a single reliable source which states that the current Constitution is "demonstrably undemocratic" and that the preamble would justify the Constitution (more than a simple re-ratification without the preamble). So far, you do not have a source that the proposed preamble would "quell claims of invalidity" or justify the democratic principles of the Constitution. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion and as such, so what. I am not presenting intent or lack thereof but a legal fact. The constitution alreadfy has a preamble, it was there from beginning, your fundamental ignorance on the subject undermines your involvement in this discussion. Since law is the law it is absurd to ask for a proof that a law is valid, beyond already accepted compliance with the process for the law to be created, and that is confirmed (although superfluously since it is a common knowledge) by s128 of the constitution. If that is not sufficient for you, you better raise that with the High Court, as they do find s128 adequate. I have made one more rearrangement and rewording of the contribution and now its time for others to decide, not just you A. enough from me for one day. signing off.Monkyx (talk

I think I can knock this discussion on the head. A Preamble is a part of the Constitution Act that gives an overall view of the intent of law regarding the Constitution. As such it is often used with the body of the Constituion to form legal opinions. The reason the new preable was proposed for the Australian Constitution is twofold. Contrary to popular belief, the Australian Constitution Act HAS NO PREAMBLE. What we call the preamble is actually the "preamble to the Act" and not part of the act itself. Therefore it has no legal standing. The new preamble was introduced by Howard (a staunch Monarchist) as a way to increase the No vote. The Republican movement was primarily minimalist, had opposed adding a preamble since 1991 and had specifically rejected a preamble at their convention in 1998 where it was actually noted that including a preamble would cause the referendum to fail. Wayne (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trivia FYI. The preamble was written entirely by John Howard (proofread by Les Murray) in 1999 and not only completely ignored the recomendations of the 1998 Constitutional Convention but was based on symbols of liberal (as in Howards political party) ideology and included provisions that had no consensus. The wording was kept secret from the public, was presented to parliament two weeks before the referendum and was passed without amendments the next day. The inclusion of mention of God was another reason the preamble failed. A mention of God was not included in the 1900 preamble draft but was added after the government received a petition signed by 35,000 people to include it. The majority of discusions in the 10 years before the referendum rejected inclusion of God in any new preamble. Another problem is that Howards preamble did not include an enactment clause. An enactment clause was the only unanimous resolution passed by the Constitutional Convention. According to some academics the biggest flaw in the new preamble was the last line; The preamble to this Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution or the law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth. With no legal force what was the point? Wayne (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The National Law Journal
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The National Law Journal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Slon02 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Slon02...firstly, this needed to be in its own section as it isn't related to the section above, so I've fixed this...secondly, why the heck are you templating an experienced editor? I still don't understand why some admins are so busy on their powertrips that they can't just "talk" to the experienced editors and find out why a situation is going on...geez.--MONGO 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, it's not the first time, but actually the THIRD time that this user has been warned for edit warring- just this month. A template gets the point across quite effectively- stop what you're doing, and this is why. It also happens to include a convenient link to my talk page in my signature, which means that if he wishes to discuss the situation, he has that option. What I see is an edit war over whether a name in an article should be redlinked or not- and nowhere was there any discussion of this except in edit summaries, not something that I'd call reaching across the aisle and trying to reach an agreement. I'd also like to point out that Arthur Rubin was not necessarily correct in his position in the edit war- while editors are encouraged to write an article before linking to it, they're not required to do so.--Slon02 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think one should consider that the IP Arthur has been dealing with has a history that Arthur may not have fully elaborated on...I haven't checked all that is going on, but I am sure Arthur could clarify this situation both on the article in question here and elsewhere...--MONGO 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Grumble. The anon just likes to link words, whether or not they violate WP:OVERLINK or WP:REDLINK.  I'm keeping track of incarnations I notice, so that perhaps we can set a range-block (as agreed in ANI) without too much collateral damage.  I recall there being consensus at ANI that if the anon could be blocked, then it should be.  Let me check the links....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The last ANI discussion may have been at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Domestic containment in post–World War II America
I've closed the AfD as keep; please go ahead and improve the article as you see fit. Deryck C. 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Female
Can you tell me why it is correct to link the word sex to the Gender article (instead of linking it to the Sex article) in the opening sentence of the article for Female? 174.1.105.28 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Copperfield's flying
I disagree with your rollback at my edit. I didn't limited myself to removing stuff, but I also added a long section, and I think it was unfair to remove it that way. Also, you readded a dead link I removed, and you didn't read my message in the talk page, sinced you said "See talk page" --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read the talk page. Your arguments are not in keeping with policy; if you refuse to read the book, and are not trying to claim it's not reliable, then what is sourced to the book should remain.  Some of the statements sourced to primary sources or interpretation of secondary sources should be removed, unless mentioned in a reliable source such as the book.  Removing the dead link may be reasonable if (1) not to an off-net source and (2) not likely to reappear.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the rules for references are different than those for "external links". References should not be removed from an article merely because the URL given is dead. --Srleffler (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed that about dead links; there's always a chance it's archived somewhere; however, if there's a dispute as to whether the source supports the statement, it may be different. It's difficult to verify source if you can't find it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Calabe1992 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion
I've done some rearranging of your article ("article about you"? I don't know what the preferred parlance is)... and I was hoping you'd take a look at it, and make sure there aren't any glaring inaccuracies. I know you can't edit it, but a brief skim couldn't hurt, I don't think. I modeled the format after sort of a blend of two other random mathematicians (haha), with the general format from the prior, and the formatting of the in-line "publications" section from the latter, which I think is something you'd mentioned earlier on. I considered adding a "See Also" for Putnam_Fellow but I don't know if it's standard to "see also" a sub-section... Anyway, thoughts appreciated... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mismarked vandalism
Hi Arthur, this should definitely have been reverted but it wasn't vandalism and shouldn't have been marked as such. I'm guessing it was just an oversight but wanted to put it out there just in case. N o f o rmation Talk  06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologized to the editor, even though he/she will probably never edit under that name again; I didn't feel like making a null edit to correct my edit summary. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me apologies as well, I didn't realize you suspected the editor to be a sock. If that's the case and you had good reason to believe it then it probably is vandalism.  N o f o rmation  Talk  07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of link in Cardinality
Would you care to be more specific than "too many errors" regarding your removal of my link under Cardinality? The link is to a piece I wrote on precisely that topic. There is nothing untoward about an author adding such a link. I receive no benefit from the link or from offering the piece for free use by others. I would be grateful for any corrections you may offer, but am unaware of any errors in the piece at this time.

Khalpern (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should never ( (singing) hardly ever) link to your own work, even if it were published by a reliable source. See, for example, WP:SPS and WP:ELNO#11.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to Cardinality Link Removal
Granted, I had not come across that (I read the pages for generic external links). This said, is there any reason that you object other than a general distaste for such links? If not, I believe you are ignoring the cardinal rule (no pun intended) that if a rule keeps one from improving wikipedia, one should ignore it. As it is, the piece I "self-published" (i.e. posted under a creative commons license on my website) is not original research, contains no controversial claims, involved a great deal of time, and underwent extensive revisions. No, I'm not an expert in the field -- but if we relied on "experts" in cardinality we would be restricted to a very small set of people. As it is, my piece is a very convenient summary of cardinality results -- created for my own use. I am sharing it with others in the hope that they may save time by consulting it. Pedagogical and reference pieces are not published in refereed journals, and I expect you will see far more of this sort of thing as academics move to an open-source model. If I were to link to lecture notes, would that be amiss?

Look, I'm not going to get into a revision war with you. I'm new to wikipedia and was just trying to do something helpful. If this isn't what wikipedia is about, or if it offends some ideology of yours, or if you assume I'm some spammer tooting his own horn, then feel free to dispose of the link. I benefit from your contributions, and would rather not argue over turf that another cultivates quite well. Incidentally, if you had actually read the piece I linked to you probably would have found it quite interesting.

One last thing I should clarify -- I didn't "appear" to link to my own work or try to sneak anything under the radar. I very clearly and explicitly stated that I was doing so in the revision comment, and I would thank you not to impugn my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalpern (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first time, you didn't say it was yours. At that time, I looked at the page and found it had a number of errors (fact) and that it didn't add much to the pages (opinion).  The fact that it's your page means that you may not add it, even if it were accurate and helpful, unless it is published.  I have declined to add my published papers or my (late) mother's books and papers as references to articles, even if relevant, although I've sometimes asked on talk pages for them to be added.  I may be taking WP:COI too seriously, but that's my take on the issue.  Certainly, one of my "papers" characterizing 3-dimensional algebras over the reals (publshed in the newsgroup sci.math only) could not be used as a reference, even though it is referenced by real, published, papers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this reply will show up as such, so apologies if it doesn't.  On reflection I suspect that if our roles were reversed, I would take your position re the self-posting -- so I'm not going to argue it. And clearly you practice what you preach. As for not mentioning that it was mine, I beg to differ. Just look at the "view history" list for Cardinality. My original post's revision comments were "Added external reference to cardinality monograph I posted online." I thought the meaning was clear, but perhaps it came across ambiguously? Otherwise, I'm not sure what "first time" you refer to. As for the errors you speak of, it would be quite helpful to me if you could point some out. However given that I've conceded your point regarding the link, this has the nature of a personal request rather than one concerning wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalpern (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake. You did say it was your paper.  As for errors –
 * 3. Notation (3): "Partitions"?  I don't think that's standard notation in set theory, and I'm sure it's not standard in combinatorics.
 * 3. Notation (5): Suggestion. If you use the convention that an ordinal is the set of previous ordinals, then:
 * $$n = \{0, 1, \ldots, n-1\}$$
 * 5. (3) Transfinite = not finite?  May have problems if you allow infinite Dedekind finite cardinals.
 * 5. (5) &alefsym;s can be defined even without choice; no assumptions necessary. For example (confusing sets, cardinals, and ordinals),
 * $$\alef_{n+1} = H\left(\alef_n\right)$$, where H represents Hartogs' function.
 * 5. (6). See above 5. (3), if there infinite Dedekind finite cardinals, this is wrong.  Better to define
 * $$\beth_0 = \alef_0.$$
 * 5. Thm. (1). Requires a weak form of the axiom of choice; the axiom of countable choice is adequate.
 * 5. Thm. (5): Requires a weak form of choice; CH can be defined as the statement that there are no cardinals between $$\beth_0$$ and $$\beth_1$$; it's difficult to show, but there is a model of set theory in which CH holds and the reals cannot be well-ordered.  Definition 5 above can be used to show that there is no cardinal between $$\alef_n$$ and $$\alef_{n+1}$$...
 * 5. Thm. (6): GCH implies both forms, but I'm not sure they are equivalent without choice.  Together, they don't imply GCH.
 * 5. Thm. (7): I'm not sure what you're saying; 5. Thm. (8) below is a conseqence of AC
 * 5. Thm. (8): Consequence of AC.
 * 6. Properties (16) (17) (19) do not require c > 0 except to avoid a=c=0 for (16) and (17).
 * 11.1 (14): The Hamel basis of RN over R is actually $$\beth_1$$ (assuming AC) At least, I think I can demonstrate that.  If not, there would be a vector space isomorphism between RN and R&lt;N.  I can't prove there isn't one immediately, but it doesn't look correct.
 * 11.2 (21): That one's probably OK....
 * 11.3 (5): Probably correct, anyway.
 * 12 Dimension = algebraic? You need to specify the base field, as well.  In set theory, the Hamel basis is usually the Hamel basis of R over Q.  (As an aside, all bases of a vector space V over a field K having the same cardinality requires a form of the axiom of choice.  I don't recall if it's equivalent.)
 * Not all the statements where you attribute the proof to section 20.1 are actually even noted there....
 * Actually, that's about all. Fewer errors than I thought.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow - thanks, Arthur. I really appreciate the time you took to read the piece and comment on it. I guess I took too hand-wavy an approach in places (I admit to being an ex-physicist) and glossed over certain subtleties. Your list will be of great help in revising the document and improving my own understanding of the subject. This was very kind of you. Khalpern (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page deletion
What was the BLP violation in the section titled "out of Italian Fascism"?  Will Beback   talk    01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can restore it if you wish, but it looks as if it was accusing Santorum of illegal campaigning based on an alleged (later) statement by Judge Frank Montemuro. I could be wrong, as I can make little sense out of the entire section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're not sure we should probably leave it there. BLP is a strict policy, but it shouldn't be used indiscriminately.   Will Beback    talk    03:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clark County Nevada Caucus info deletion
Perhaps we are giving a good contributor a hard time. I agree with Drodbeck, that grammar and spelling are real issues for 99.90.197.87 I spent some time, today, trying to fix spelling and grammar excitement (I can't fix citation problems at this speed).

99... should have used this article in his references for the counting section (which probably should have been in the Clark County section): http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-gop-continues-counting-verifying-caucus-votes-138746289.html He may have done so if you had placed some cn tags. Instead you deleted the whole section; which may not have been your most appropriate response.

I encourage you to recreate the counting section and reference the article which he was clearly reading. He kindly referenced the article, making it easy for me to find. I appreciate the edit help that you and Drodbeck have afforded this article. I'm hoping that we can all learn from this experience. I know very little about wiki editing, I would otherwise perform these citations and reversions myself. Should you lag in the effort, I'll be here to support you.

50.132.91.194 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just watched Amy Tarkanian retire here:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2012/feb/06/6296/ 99 may have deserved some cn tags; I doubt that he deserved the multiple reversion and deletion we brought him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.91.194 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw nothing in the "Counting" section that should be there even if it were sourced. Too much detail, not relevant to the election.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of editor opinion on PAC Page
Okay let me take another stab at making this paragraph...ramifications of the Jan 31st ruling I feel certainly can be justified..and I happen to have a many years of legal experience reading court rulings and have successfully won several circuit court, appeal court, and even a supreme court decision in my favor in Hawaii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Arthur,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Baristha
Could you take a look at this blocked editor's recent posting to his talk page, with an eye to determining whether it's an appropriate use of the page while blocked? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI
It appears that you appended your "oppose" comment to the prior "poll" rather than to the current RfC. I thought you might want to reconsider your edit. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Kid
Hi Arthur! How's law school treating you? FYI, I just asked for a soft block against one of the Kid's IPs for persistent external link spamming. Details are on my talk page. BTW, what are you doing on wiki? Don't you have an exam tomorrow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IP 99.181.133.202 is online now and is likely the 'Kid again, despite the 30 day block. Please add that one to your list.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a note saying editors are welcome to add to the list, including adding tags (specifically, the blocked tag). My desktop computer has died, which is the one I usually edit Wikipedia from, so I don't check as often.  (All the law school stuff is on my laptop, but I may miss paying some bills, as the flashdrive backup also died.....)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a 30-day clock reset and blocking of several IPs for block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

88 (number)#In sports
I reverted your reverting my edits at 88 (number). Your edit summary stated there was no citation so I found one. It excessively removed other edits, all well researched. Use Template:Citation needed next time. Richardc020 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See WP:NUM for the reason I removed your sports figures.  AGAIN — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these are in the Major Leagues:

so you'll have to cite another rule or more detail why. Richardc020 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indianapolis Colts' wide receiver Marvin Harrison's jersey number.
 * Baltimore Colts's John Mackey's former jersey number.
 * Kansas City Chiefs' Jonathan Baldwin's jersey number.
 * St. Louis Rams' wide receiver Isaac Bruce's former jersey number.
 * Portland Trailblazers' Nicolas Batum's jersey number.
 * The number has to be retired by a major league team. Not the number of a player at a major league team that was retired by his minor league team, and not the number of a retired player unless the number is specifically retired by the team.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Explain why you didn't delete all the rest in that article which I didn't write but which you kept despite its not meeting that criteria. Targeting me? Richardc020 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted all the sports entries, except NASCAR (which seems to have a specific entry in the guidelines) and the LPGA record, which probably isn't OK under the guidelines, but it is a current "league" (LPGA) record. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fractal Fractions
Arthur: I got the positive response I was hoping for from a professor in the Mathematics Department at the University of Michigan. He computed the finite sum of that Fractal Fraction I posted and it is 1. I still do not know how to compute that type of fraction nor what they are called if anything.

Obviously the article adds nothing as it now stands.

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwbeeson (talk • contribs) 16:26, February 13, 2012‎


 * I'm sorry; he's wrong. The value alternates between 1/2 and 2; getting 1 requires something like the product analog of the cumulative moving average.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

* Issue versus Express Advocacy
rewrote whole page...don't know how to do ref/name function and few good sources the only 168 people downloaded the law journal article I was using. Bummer..these pages see thousands per day PhilPbmaise (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

user 99.90.197.87
Hi Arthur. An IP that you blocked back in November, and has been blocked a number of times since, has continued to edit. That I guess is not a problem, the problem is his or her grasp of English. I am sort of at my wits end here, and would appreciate some advice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fear our next step might have to be ANI. I have never submitted to ANI, any guidance would be appreciated.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose there's no point to a user RfC? It's a stable IP....
 * I guess the best approach is to suggest a long-term block for WP:COMPETENCE, although WP:NPA may also be appropriate. You've probably gathered more evidence than I had.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * Well, the IP is blocked for a month for edit warring (as an aside, those edit warring templates are evil things to navigate.....) So perhaps after a month we shall see if he or she has learned anything, while I doubt it, one never knows...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of material from user talk page
Hi, Generally, I'd prefer that others not remove (non-abusive) material from my user talk page, but I trust you have your reasons. Though now I'm curious. What's the story with User: 99.119.131.159? Why were they blocked? The edits seem largely innocuous and minor, from the handful I've checked. Sindinero (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a sock of the blocked IP 97.87.29.188 . It's rare than any of the 99.* stays around long enough to be blocked, but contributions of a block-evading IP can be removed wherever they may be found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy response. Sindinero (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, how do you know that those IPs were the same user? JRSpriggs (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All from Kalamazoo, Michigan; all making the same edits (WP:TEA, linking/unlinking single articles with edit summary the article, adding (actually, restoring comments associated with yet another another incarnation, reverted as also being a sock) raw links to talk pages with the text "please consider adding ..."), adding probably inappropropriate Wikinews links, etc. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, some are from nearby communities. For example, it's a pretty easy hop from 'zoo to Grand Rapids or Portage, two other cities the editor apparently frequents.  There's stuff about the recent blocking on my talk page too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Material implication
I created this, as you suggested. Hope you like it. Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute
Hi, your recent edits removed material currently under discussion after several reverts - can you please make your points there along with others so we can agree on this para. Babakathy (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Babakathy (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

at WT:V

 * Hi there user:Arthur Rubin 71000 edits, sysop. Your actions at WT:V are disruptive. Please stop it. NewbyG  ( talk) 04:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was a proper revert of comments, myself. I seriously object to being lumped into a "little gang" (ABF stuff, really), and I do not like, for the most part, the way the "higher ups" are handling the nightmare at WP:V as of late. Why did you erase the comments of this editor? Do you know how long the page has been sullied by discussions of "truth"? I can show you if you want... Doc   talk  06:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that other users are not disruptive there, just that NewbyG is still being disruptive, although he's learned to produce almost understandable comments. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - but if you objectively look at the edits to the policy page (esp. concerning the dreaded "tag"), you will see at least a "micro-consensus" to remove it. "Little gang" indeed. The silent masses may not choose to comment, but 8:2 is still 4:1, and it's a far better indication of consensus on that issue than the alleged support for removing VNT without any sort of compromise. So the policy will remain "under discussion" forever. Yippee. Doc   talk  06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ..  although he's learned to produce almost understandable comments. I am pleased to hear that. I do hope we will have no unpleasantness over this. I believe I have the right when it is claimed I am a member of a "little gang" to object to that, it is a personal attack ,and it is in-accurate, and such comments are being used as a smokescreen by user:S Marshall, who is the disruptive editor at WT:V. Why is that user being protected? And why am I still being persecuted and denied natural justice. The actions you have recently taken at WT:V fly in the face of any sensible and fair and productive efforts. Sorry, I used to admire you. Here, you are using bueracratic folderol to suppress my legitimate comments, which you must know. That is contrary to the spirit of this wiki, though obviously WP:AGF still applies and will always apply. Sorry. NewbyG  ( talk) 08:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proofs
Arthur, you're a [redacted]. I'm just trying to help the wiki, and here you are, canceling my work! I am a philosophy student, and I know for sure that material implication is a rule! So [redacted]! ~Doot~ (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you're trying to help. Your "proofs" (especially when they duplicate an already-existing proof using yet another set of basic rules) belong at WikiBooks or WikiVersity, not here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the personal attacks on this page and left a reminder on Doot's talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sikorav
Hi Arthur, Could you please restore the page Jean-Claude Sikorav if you get a chance? Tkuvho (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done by CBM, although I don't yet see enough there to save it from AfD. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but the argument for a temporary undeletion seemed reasonable enough, in case there is more material to add. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum
Hi, I'm not sure what you mean on your edit here. Are you saying that the spreadingsantorum site might be libel, and therefore we should not use the link? If so, we've gone over that a lot and the consensus of others is that it isn't libel. If you have reasons why it may be, could you come and give a more detailed rundown of why? Be— —Critical 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be defamation but-for the questioned assertion of parody. Seems parallel.  I'll provide more comments there when I have more time.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did research on defamation, and it is very different from what you would think just looking at something: you can say just about anything, as long as you aren't making a claim which is both untrue, and meant to be taken literally. I doubt anything on the site meets both those criteria.   Be— —Critical  01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html : Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Intent has little to do with it, even for public figures.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

, and
Arthur,

By a circuitous route I have found an inconstency in formatting of fractions between and, and most of  my argument is at Template_talk:Convert although that specific bug has been fixed by User:Jimp and User:Wikid77 I have I think opened a can of worms, that the oblique (slash) displays differently by the two templates and I think WP:MOSNUM is inconsistent because it uses both the style that  uses and the style that  uses. I don't want to WP:CANVASS you at all, but since you had a hand in the changes and are a regular at both of those templates, I wanted to make you aware of it and ask for your advice and help towards a consistent conclusion.

The style defined by MOS:MATH and  is, in my opinion, entirely separate and I would prefer not to mix concerns then if we can help it: That is a specialist and well defined style for mathematical articles, and I have no trouble that it differs from style in more-general articles that have text using fractions.

Sincerely Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Third Millennium
Please undo your edit on third millennium. The A.D. is important.

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.163.6 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's clearly inappropriate, per WP:MOSDATE to add A.D. without also adding CE. It's probably better to disregard it entirely, but link the years (even if 3000 would probably be a self-link).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Synchronicity and Chaos Theory
Hallo there professor Rubin,
 * regarding my good faith edit that has been undone by you... you wrote that you didn't see a connection...
 * If I could ... explain that ?
 * Hmm... I guess no... it was just an untranslatable feeling.
 * Thanks for being available for discussion.
 * Please consider having a nice and relaxing week end.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wedding Gifts
You reverted my edit to wedding gifts, so I though the best policy was discussion. Please view the talk page Dainamo (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing Cato Institute
Per our earlier discussion on personal and Cato talk pages, here's another source.

Charles Koch issued a statement this month that confirmed the correctness of my edits with respect to the Cato founding and name change.


 * Charles Koch’s Recent Statement on the Cato v. Koch Conflict

By Ilya Somin • Volokh Conspiracy - March 9, 2012 2:00 pm

"My objective is for Cato to continually increase its effectiveness in advancing a truly free society over the long term. This was my objective when, in 1976, I came up with the idea of converting the Charles Koch Foundation to a public policy institute and recruited Ed Crane to run it." Activist (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered Question
It has been a month and you still have not answered my question yet. Why did you link the word sex to the Gender article (instead of linking it to the Sex article) in the opening sentence of the Female article? 174.1.105.28 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because "gender" is more appropriate in that context than "sex"?  Acroterion   (talk)   02:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the opening sentence of the Female article, it states that "female is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)." Based on that sentence, I'm pretty sure that the word sex refers to biological sex (not gender). If you think the word sex refers to characteristics used to distinguish between males and females (i.e. gender), then what exactly makes you think that? 174.1.105.28 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Sex is a descriptive term for biologically being male or female, whereas gender is a descriptive term in languages that denote nouns as male or female or neuter (and then often adjectives have to "agree" and take the gender of the noun). However, WP:MOS tends to use "gender" all the time when it should say "sex" (e.g. "gender neutral language" instead of "non sexist language"). The chances of getting that changed are, I think, pretty close to zero, possibly a bit less than that. Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The word "sex" is used to refer to two things: (1) the intercourse which leads to sexual reproduction and related acts, and (2) the classification of individuals according to the role which they might be able to play in those acts due to their anatomical structure. Some people find the idea of sex1 messy and distasteful and would thus prefer to use a different word to describe sex2. They borrowed the word "gender" from linguistics for that purpose. In linguistics, "gender" refers to the classification of words according to which sex2 they might make reference, although it has been extended to apply to other things in some languages. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The online etymology dictionary has the grammatical sense from the late 14thC, and the male/female sex sense from the early 15thC, so there's a bit of weight behind both in terms of usage. It does note that the latter became more popular in the 20thC as 'sex' became more associated with the connotation of intercourse, but the usage already existed. It also has the social attributes sense from 1963. Modern dictionaries usually accept all those definitions.Number36 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How does he do it?
Hi Arthur, I see you are on patrol for the 'Kid again. Out of curiosity, do you know how it is even possible for him to find so many minor tweaks to so many articles in such a short time? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Think he's an AI? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could be.... or he's armed with wiki gadgets and tools I know nothing about.... or something else?? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence
Hello. You recently made this edit, and removed content that you identified as vandalism. Can you explain why this is the case? Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the image is legitimate, and if the Palestinians refer to them as a "martyrs", it is damaging to Wikipedia for us to refer to them as "martyrs" without attribution. Considering some of his other edits, I cannot come to the conclusion that it is not intentional damage.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I request that you are a little more precise when explaining your reversions. Thank you very much.


 * In English, according to the Christian tradition, a martyr is not someone who commits violence, but someone who chooses to endure violence upon his own person rather than renounce his faith. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing by 99.19.42.126 ==

Hello.

I thought I should bring this to your attention. I am an anonymous but long-time contributor to Wikipedia. 99.19.42.126 has been repeatedly reverting your edits and seemed to be bordering on personal attacks. See his/her talk page. I had tried to warn the editor about this inappropriate behavior, and it appears to be continuing. Please take action based on your administrative discretion, especially given that warnings were already provided. Thanks. 70.244.32.155 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a roving IP, and I'm not sure I should take action if it's directed against my non-administrative actions. But thank you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that I should revert his apparent abusive use of the undo feature? If he continues, should I make an AIV report? 70.244.32.155 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, exactly. It's edits being made intentionally in opposition to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I still think he may think he's improving the encyclopedia.  If there is any basis for blocking (as opposed to just reverting), it is found in WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:COMPETENCE.  But there's no good way to block.  If you want to bring the matter up, try WP:ANI, referencing Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723, although there may be more recent history.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Just to confirm, if I notice apparent abuse of the undo feature, I should revert it on sight. Correct? 70.244.32.155 (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may revert it. There has been at least two of the 1000s of edits the IP-hopping editor has made which I reverted because he didn't explain why it was possibly appropriate; after he explained it, it was no longer obviously inappropriate....  It's up to you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. If I notice him reverting your reversions, I will revert them on sight. Thanks. 70.244.32.155 (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated Question
I have been reminded that I would think an article on a female mathematician named Frink, referenced in Kelley's topology text, might be deserving of an article (by my sitting next to somebody looking at a magazine dedicated to her son's profession--I function somewhat superstitiously). Do you concur or have you an opinion?Julzes (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries and Antarctica wikilink
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC) I've less than five minutes. I've attempted to notify you again. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus & SPCA
I modified the Massachusetts SPCA sentence after carefully re-reading the original reference. Thank you for noticing this, because the way that the sentence was formerly written before you editted it was less than ideal. The phrase Romney's actions may have been illegal under Massachusetts law was not in the Time article, but was a synthesis by Wikipedia editors of all the quotes of the SPCA. Instead, I have changed the sentence to read as follows: The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the legality of Romney's actions, but noted that it is illegal in Massachusetts to transport a dog "in an open bed of a pick-up truck" or "in a way that endangers it." I think that the new phrasing eliminates any subjective interpretation. Debbie W. 17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still might technically be a synthesis, but all the facts are in the same article, and made by the same person. It's probably not a synthesis, either by us, or by the columnist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

3rd Millennium
Hello! I was wondering why the article for the 3rd millennium only shows the decades for the 21st and 22nd centuries. What about all of the other centuries? Thanks! Sincerely, SuperHero2111 21:11, 26 April, 2012 (CST)
 * Those are the only decades which have articles (as opposed to redirects). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how come only those decades have articles? Sincerely, SuperHero2111 (Talk). 17:02, 27 April, 2012 (CST)
 * Actually, I had been lobbying for only decades in the next 100 years having articles, which would put us through 2110s. However, an editor created stubs for 2120s through 2190s; although most are substubs, I couldn't get consensus to merge them back into 22nd century.


 * One cannot say enough notable and verifiable things about the future to justify having such articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus category
After some thinking, I agree with your decision to switch the categorization of Seamus article from Category: animal cruelty incidents to Category: animal rights. The animal cruelty category has a statement allowing the inclusion of incidents which are suspect or which are not illegal: "Articles pertaining to individual incidents that have been described by sources as involving cruelty to animals. Please note that pages here do not necessarily involve actual animal cruelty in the legal definition of the word. Rather, they are pages that deal with the subject of animal cruelty and the associated controversies." However, I'm not sure that I agree with that policy, since it kind of declares that the person is guilty of animal cruelty. The broader category of animal rights which doesn't have judgmental overtones is the correct category. Debbie W. 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments at AfD discussion
— Northamerica1000(talk) 04:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Complaint, Your not a engineer; why then do you delete and or edit an article on stanley Meyer?
Dear Sir,

I know that you want everyone to believe that your understanding of Stanley Meyer technology is correct, but your not even an engineer and you are attempting to tell the world that your view of Stanley Meyer as a Charlton is the correct one. The patents in their entirety represent a concise description of Hydrogen On demand technology at the true level that it really exists at and all your doing is re-enforcing a miss-understanding of the science itself!

The patents explain how the technology really operates, it is not electrolysis, the article needs to be changed as it is written to reflect and focus attention at what was said all along. People are not interested in a boiler plate explanation, they want to know what Stanley Meyer was promoting. The article is so out of context that it can not be taken as a representation of the work of Stanley Meyer. It deceives the reader into following a completely different train of thought, which is not fitting with the realty of what Stanley Meyer achieved and has been replicated in my company's laboratory as well as at several other facilities around the world and by those backyard mechanics and experimenters that you probably believe are idiots for trying to beat paying for their petrol.

The article is bias, it does not even review 80% of what Stanley Meyer worked on and put into print about his technology. Also I never wrote about perpetual motion, and or commented anything about Thermodynamics being wrong. It's the fact that you claim that he worked on Electrolysis which is laughable, because he was researching how that electrostatic bonds in water could be disrupted without use of current using the capacitance pressure of voltage. No one in the fuel cell engineering community finds what your doing productive to our future plans to market this technology.

Stanley Meyer and his brother are both highly respected in many research circles for there contribution to fuel cell development, if his technology did not work as he claimed. Why then has it been replicated so many times, and by so many engineers? Seriously, your either very young and naive or one of the biggest A*hole on the planet to use a public forum like this to lie to the readers interested in finding out more about Stanley Meyer and his technology.

Grow Up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.124.223 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing which Stanley "put into print" which has any potential use violates the laws of thermodynamics. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't work; just that I'm not putting any money into it, even to the cost of a stamp, without proof.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, this is exactly why that it is so difficult to move breakthrough technology forward; everyone in the general public has a bias of trusting the opinions of the loudest mouth simply because no one wants to believe that anyone could dare so infamously miss represent them selves; and or would believe it was consciously possible to say such a malignant lie about someone else, because of the incredible shame that should be felt in doing so..

You will make a fantastic lawyer, probably getting top grades. .how I wish that you didn't park your writing talents where plausible deny-ability sits, and stick to honest investigative journalism and work to restore the image of the press. .Since 'Wikipedia' stands a chance of ironing out the rough areas between old school established views and revisionism, a public apology should take place. .

You would also do justice to the mission of this fine Encyclopedic journal, if that you investigated and reported the relevance of the facts that you obscure. Please do the world a favor and stop passing critical judgment along. .It is one thing to disagree if you have facts that support your position because then you have something to stand on if debated. There is no shame in being honestly wrong, if you admit to it. But when you condemn a man who is not even with us for daring trying to better humanity as a Charlton because you find it to hard to believe that he pioneered a new process to extract Hydrogen On-Demand and a innovative method to use it for creating Rotary Power is ridiculous to do all together. .its like shooting yourself in the foot, there is nothing to gain in the long term from doing this. It hurts you personally because its your labor that goes into earning those dollars you loose to pay each year for fuel.

Stanley Meyer lost in court because the judge was "so sure" that Stanley slipped some electrolyte into the water reservoir during the court exhibition. Yet even in the trial, Stanley defended his work under oath! The "Justice" of course felt his intelligence was insulted, as you must feel and passed swift and harsh judgement because he was convinced that he understood 'all' the science.

Again, this was not electrolysis! It was a capacitive process that used the pressure of voltage to separate, i.e cut. .the covalent bonds of the water molecule. .Even if we get approval to bring this into the market place by the DOT, the professional damage your poor journalism has caused will take many years to fully recover from because its out here on the internet. What your doing is no different than that of the "Quatloos", that shoot first (run their mouth critically) and then ask questions latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.124.223 (talk • contribs) 04:10, May 6, 2012‎

Respect
Re: "Although I generally respect your work." Goes without saying, there's nothing personal involved in this dispute of course and I have much respect for you as well. I disagree with your assessment but I appreciate your perspective. S Æ don talk 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus incident dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Seamus incident". Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

my page
Hi Arthur,

I made a page as a project last summer and did not realize it was still up, and would like it to be removed as soon as possible. There is a lot of personal information that I do not feel comfortable being posted on the internet. I have attached the link to the page.

Thank you,

Dani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DANIgabriele — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIgabriele (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. If you want a more speedy deletion, put db-u1 for a file in your user space (i.e. User:DANIgabriele/...), or db-g7 if you are the only contributor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

lattice theory not capitalized at the beginning of a sentence?
hi Arthur,

You recently undid an edit I made to Equivalence_relation. Do you think that a sentence which begins with "lattice theory" should not begin with a capital letter?

thanks,

Matt

Doctormatt (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My recollection was that it wasn't a "sentence", there being no punctuation preceding it. Perhaps it should have been a sentence....  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears I was wrong. It was the WP:Sea of blue that confused, as the last word of the previous sentence was also linked.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Arthur. Cheers, Matt  Doctormatt (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"friend"
You appear to have a "friend" who is only reverting your edits. Arzel (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know. Many of them were reversions of his edits (under different IPs), but he has reverted some independent edits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi
(Posting here because you are active). In Template:Did you know/Queue/4 - could you change the Compton-Belkovich Thorium Anomaly name to Compton–Belkovich Thorium Anomaly and in the credits section at the bottom. it's on the main page in 3 mins. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's now here. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Happer + CRU emails
Hello Arthur:

The IP is persistent at Happer's page, isn't he? I 've been reverting the same Exxon business at Richard Lindzen -- ah, I see you just did, too. Pest.

I'm making one of my periodic attempts to make Climategate slightly less POV. So far, all I've managed to do is stir up the Usual Suspects, sigh. So if you could look in at the talk page, I'd be grateful. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bahamas
I have again reverted your edit to the first sentence of The Bahamas. I can see no evidence that the referenced article in The Encyclopedia of Earth is anything to do with the president of Nauru. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference quotes a speech by the president of Nauru. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference for the sentence that you were was this article from The Encyclopedia of Earth, which is, as I said, nothing to do with the president of Nauru. You were perhaps getting confused with a different paragraph and a different reference. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. It was http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_5-6_144/ai_n58473630, a speech by Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, reprinted from New York Times Upfront.  In fact, that Encyclopedia of Earth article has nothing to do with the sentence I was working with.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look again at, and also . The The Encyclopedia of Earth was indeed the reference given for the sentence you were trying to change. If you were trying to say that the The Encyclopedia of Earth article doesn't say anything about tropical climate or about the Gulf Stream, that would be true (see below), but similarly the report of the president of Nauru's speech says nothing specifically about the Bahamas tropical climate nor about the Gulf Stream.
 * A further examination shows that the sentence to which the The Encyclopedia of Earth article was providing a reference was removed in on 1st March 2008, thus leaving the ref against a sentence to which it didn't apply. I have now deleted the reference which has been irrelevant for the past 4 years! - David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Michigan Troll has a long history of adding sources and sentences which are independent of each other, and sometimes just one or the other. I'm sorry about my mistake, but comments about the ranking just need to just be changed to cn, then.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Birthday Present in Birthdays
Hey,

I was just wondering if my edits could be left on for a short time at least. It is my best friends birthday today and this would be the best present I could possibly give him. Please Please PLEASE could you do this for me?!?!? If you are willing to do so I will happily undo all my edits at the end of his birthday myself saving you the extra effort.

Thanks in advance for your understanding, Wert149

P.S. PLEASE?!?!?!?! :)

Wert149 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Pedophilia template
How is this template NPOV? It just collects articles on pedophilia. Is it the Scandals section? Oct13 (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Child sex abuse is not necessarily pedophilia, and the assertion that it is can be NPOV. Satanic ritual abuse, if it existed, would clearly not be pedophilia.  In addition, asserting the particular day care scandals are pedophilia could easily be a WP:BLP violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by 24.104.128.178
See User_talk:24.104.128.178. Another block may be in order or something. The vandalism is not stopping. I've just reverted their unconstructive edits on Vijay Pande, a living person. I'll leave whatever further action is necessary up to you. Best, Jesse V. (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully the blocks or whatever will stay in place a good while, so that this behavior will be stopped. Jesse V. (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you the wikiPolice all of a sudden?
"Book 'em Danno" -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I dislike major (even if localized) edits which damage Wikipedia.  You're not the first to attempt major recategorizations without seeking consensus, and you won't be the last; however, you have indicated that you don't understand the complaints against you.  Under those circumstances, a block for WP:COMPETENCE seems indicated.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I not only dislike damage to WP, I positively hate it. As for re-categorisation, it is not the issue that has caused this silly ruckus. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental theorem of cyclic groups, Proof by Bézout's identity
You removed my addition to teh article stating: Slightly more complicated than the first proof, using the same concepts.

Some people will find teh first proof "easier", but it's definetely "bigger". Relying on proven axioms, we can reduce teh clutter on new proofs, and make things clearer and lighter to read.

I find my proof much easier to understand and lighter to read, and I'm sure more people will too. Why not leave it there? It could even be merged on teh first section as an equivalent proof.

--AYGHOR (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is some debate about whether we should have any proofs at all, unless the proofs, themselves, are notable. I wouldn't go that far, but a proof, at least, needs to have a notable technique.  Yours doesn't.  ? Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You said my proof uses teh same concepts as teh first. If it doesn't use such
 * notable technique, then teh first doesn't too, am I wrong? Also, I never
 * said my proof was more clever, it's just that it's less cluttered, better to
 * read. Is there any Con to leaving it there? I find it only makes things easier
 * to understand, and teh whole article dedicated to this.
 * --AYGHOR (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * --AYGHOR (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A New Title
Henceforth you will be known as Rubin the Reverter. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Competency?
Arthur, since you have questioned my competency I will do the same with you based on some of your recent edits. I have seen you working amongst the climate change articles and I will make a mental note to be more vigilant in that topic area. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, most of my edits in the climate change area were reverting an IP-hopping editor without interest in improving the encyclopedia; his only interest seems to be increasing links. He's been inactive since the Kalamazoo Public Library computer IP has been blocked.  However, you're welcome to be more vigilant, provided that your edits are compliant with Wikipedia policies.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, got possessive about my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.pragmatist (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Request
Ram Kishore Shukla is an article about well known and reputed person of our region, please tell how to add citations to refrences, i did not find any solution so i removed references, Please consi der it, Thank you User:Alcides86
 * The way to add a citation to the article is, after the statement covered by the citation, enter citation URL, after removing the spaces. The spaces are there to prevent the citation from being used as a reference here   The citations might still not be reliable, but that might not  be sufficient to indicate notability; to do that, you might use the full cite news template, instead of the bare URL.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since, the person Ram Kishore Shukla is not a living person, have been active when electronic media and electronic press was not so active in that case i can't get that precise citations sir, but how ever i have added all of them those are available, please consider, and remove template with respect, Thanking you very much. user:Alcides86 —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

Respected sir I, have added citations of most reliable government originated documents, therefore, removed WP:BLPPROD tag on the talk page of Ram Kishore Shukla, please consider, Thanking you user:Alcides86

Disruptive editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recovered_memory_therapy&diff=493340834&oldid=493311597 That is disruptive editing. You've been around damn well long enough to know that. You cannot wholesale revert good edits because you disagree with parts of the changes. Especially when some of them are merely noting failed verifications and especially when the change you apparently disagree with is the accurate reflection of what the source says. Don't like my edits? Fine. Say why. Don't like what the sources say? Too bad. Revert a bunch of good changes because of unrelated complaints? That is disruptive. I may "just" be an IP editor, but I've around the block a long, long time. Longer than you've been editing, in fact. People get blocked for that kind of editing, which I see you already know (from your block log and a search of the various problem boards). If you keep it up, I'll report you to the admin boards where many of the administrators are apparently far more familiar with this sort of nonsense from you than I am (as I've never had the the displeasure of wading into your end of the pool before).

tldr version -- Blanket reversions and reverting in disagreement with the sources is disruptive. You know better. Cut it out. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely wrong. Blanket reversions are acceptable when parts are near vandalism, even if some parts are acceptable or an improvement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding disruptive revert, lying about policy, and calling good faith edits vandalism. The thread is Arthur Rubin. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.172.75 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sergejs Misins
Please restore article Sergejs Misins in my own space User:Dark Eagle/Sergejs Misins, I'd move information to the Latvian Wikipedia. Thx --Dark Eagle (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Please use db-u1 when you're done with it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago and climate change
Hi. I noticed that you and an anon had a slow-motion edit war on the issue of flooding due to climate change in Trinidad and Tobago. Neither of you seem to have used to article's talk page to discuss the issue. I have started a discussion on the topic, and would request that both of you discuss the issue before either of you engage in any additional reverting. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've used the article's talk page on a number of other countries where the same material is being incorrectly added by the anon. I think the central discussion, or as close to a central discussion as there is, is at Talk:Regional effects of global warming.  The (online) source is adapted by a speech by President Marcus Stephen of Nauru; it's possible that he was referring to a published study, but we only have his word for it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the link for the reference I added on the Heartland Institute page. Smm201`0 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Institute_for_Cultural_Diplomacy
From checking the history of this article( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Cultural_Diplomacy), it seems that the following user: SkaraB has created some sort of negative campaign to undermine the credibility of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its wiki page – this goes back to June 2011. For example in June 1st 2011, SkaraB tried to upload some controversial material to the page in question. Controversies that were immediately reverted for questioning by the administrator Arthur Rubin. This goes on for, up until the last deletion suggestion. The arguments and the annulment of dozens of independent links are absurd. It becomes clear, from just a five second check in youtube that over 200 high profiles individuals have given lectures and interviews for ICD and all are posted there. This is in addition to all of the links mentioned in the press section. Unfortunately, this is a compromise of the five pillars of Wikipedia. And it is important to inform other administrators immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

institute for cultural diplomacy
As suggested I checked the page and found some valid references about the Advisory Board of the institute for cultural diplomacy: President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - Speech by the President of the ICD Advisory Board after his nomination (click on the content photo): http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_advisoryboard Vice President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - See the official page of Erna Hennicot Schoepges (scroll to the bottom – unfortunately it is in French – so excuse my French) http://ehennicotschoepges.lu/cv/ An article about the nomination of Akua-dansua: http://newtimes.com.gh/story/akua-dansua-now-on-advisory-board-of-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy There are many more in this page, you just need to look thoroughly, I will send you the rest of the references tomorrow. --Hessin fahem (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, none of those indicate notability of the ICD.  But continue.  You have at least 7 days from the nomination, before a deletion would be considered.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Second try Arthur, see below, I would appreciate your feedback gretly.

User:SusanLesch
Hello.

The IP vandal reinstated the vandalism, but I was unable to revert it due to the edit filter, which prevented me from performing a constructive edit this time. That's what I do not like about the edit filter. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What edit, exactly, are you talking about? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind; that IP was blocked for 5 years, so we won't have to worry for a while. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What was the problem exactly
You reverted the edit I made to William Nordhaus 16:21, 31 May 2012‎. Your comment was "still not significant, notable, or relevant" I'm not sure where "still" came from, and I didn't understand that.


 * Nordhaus's article is a significant element of his public profile
 * It was misrepresented
 * It requires some research to find this out.
 * My references were to the source documents.

I had gone to some trouble to make what seemed to me to be a useful contribution to the content. Frankly your action seems pretty high-handed.

WP is a collaboration. Naturally as with all Wiki's anything created can be destroyed, but this seems quite arbitrary. Apparently you thought no part of the contribution was worth saving, and that there was nothing in it that was useful. It's not exactly encouraging. Or is it simply that you find it quicker to revert someone else's work than to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fentlehan (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The section "The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012 response" consists of criticism (not entirely of Nordhaus), and Nordhaus's response. His response consists of letters (not at all notable) and possibly "reply columns", which are not uncommon when a newspaper or magazine recognizes that a person is attacked (justifiably or not) in their columns.  Unless  Nordhaus's "publications" are actual articles, and not letters or reply columns, there's nothing notable there.  I see no evidence of that.  I apologize for reverting any edits you made to other sections of the article; if I did, it was not my intent.
 * The reason I said "still" is that you built on a section created by an IP-hopping anon; I realize that you are probably not that anon, and I apologize for any implications to that effect. Having read the reference you added, it looks like a "reply column", and would be inappropriate in the New York Times Review of Books if it were not.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting
I'm glad we're beginning to have some break-throughs on the page(s) in question. Any adversarial relationship, in the end, allows one to learn a lot very quickly. It's just like technological advances in times of war. That being said, I was made aware of this now,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=Arthur+Rubin+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard

I think we both learned our cooler heads prevailed in the light of threats to report activities to admin, but, if I came to an airline with an a background check that looked like this... I'd be going to interviews forever. C'mon Arthur Rubin. Be cool. You may delete this message. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ICD Conference Reports – Reliable External Sources to establish Notability
Hello Wikipedia colleagues, I have spent some hours over the past days and collected some independent, objective and reliable sources by reading the ICD online information and then google-ing the events and the conference speaker names to check other sources. As I understand it from the ICD website, ICD events are not public and by invitation only and even do not include invitations to the press or media, this is indicated on the ICD webpage. However despite that, I managed to find a serious amount of material (relative to an NGO) as you will see below, assessing WP:V and also WP:NPOV.

At the bottom of this page I have raised concern to many negative remarks and comments made by Skara B and Media Hound on the ICD Wikipedia page. My major concern here is that it looks like that no matter what material is posted on this Wikipedia page, it will always attract immediately negative reactions of Skara B and Media Hound and they will annul them and say that they not be good enough for them.

Therefore and in order to keep the work on this page as neutral as possible, I decided not to upload material to the Wikipedia page myself, but to post the resources in this talk page. My goal is to provide you with information that, to the best of my opinion, is reliable, objective, and supported by only a AAA sources, such as governmental institutions, top media organizations, high-level speakers (such as Heads of State) and to post them in this talk page to enable those who are interested, to use that for improving the page once and for all.

As the activity of the ICD is very wide and continues over many years, I decided to start with investigating ICD conferences and events firstly and then move to other activities of the ICD as well as to include confirmations from governmental institutions where ICD is registered or able to conduct activities (which I will upload to the talk page in the next days).

However, before we start with the conferences, I would like to draw your attention to the page on the website of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, where the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is presented, please see the link below:

http://www.kooperation-international.de/detail/info/icd-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy.html

Now, I will move on to the conferences:

14 Conferences in total – As it seems, the ICD is normally organizing international conferences that are taking place mostly in Berlin, but not only. Usually you can see all of the lectures and interactive discussions and interviews with the speakers in the YouTube page of the ICD. After spending hours watching some of the clips (and there are many) I find that actually this YouTube page can stand alone by itself to provide a proof that all of the ICD conferences did in fact happen and all of the speakers mentioned on the ICD pages did in fact speak at the event, and in time some of them have even paid tribute to the ICD for allowing them the possibility to speak in the ICD. It clearly shows that Mark Donfried is always moderating all lectures and panel discussions and from watching the clips you can clearly see all banners of the ICD in the background verifying that the event is an ICD event. In many cases the speakers are also greeting the institute for its events.

I would start with a prominent example, which can be found below:

Conference Title: The Berlin Freedom of Expression Forum - "Censorship and Freedom in Traditional and New Media: The Revolution of Media as a tool of Freedom of Expression" (Berlin, February 28th - March 2nd, 2012) Link to conference lectures on YouTube (in total 33 lectures): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL40E07B72E759D5C6&feature=plop Link to Conference Interviews: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1FAFAD40CEFB4E0D&feature=plcp

Link to Kathleen Carroll (Executive Editor, Associated Press; Co-Chair Pulitzer Board) speech can be found here: http://www.ap.org/Content/Press-Release/2012/Kathleen-Carroll-discusses-the-challenges-of-getting-public-information

You can see the AP article about Kathleen Carroll's participation here: http://www.ap.org/Content/Press-Release/2012/Kathleen-Carroll-discusses-the-challenges-of-getting-public-information

You can even watch Kathleen Carroll's speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Z38vByUaI&list=PL40E07B72E759D5C6&index=22&feature=plpp_video

Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/gphr/index.php?en_rifef-2012

More on this event:

The Organization for Democracy and Freedom in Syria reports on the speech of Ribal Al-Assad which was delivered on March 1st in the context of: “The Berlin Freedom of Expression Forum - "Censorship and Freedom in Traditional and New Media: The Revolution of Media as a tool of Freedom of Expression" (Berlin, February 28th - March 2nd, 2012):

Link to the ODFS page:

http://www.odf-syria.org/news/news/berlin-ribal-alassad-calls-for-freedom-in-syria-in-speech-at-the-brandenburg-gate

A Selection of Additional Examples can be found here:

a). The German Missions in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland published a report about the ICD event: The Rise of Africa - "Africa and the Global Economy: The Future of Nation Branding, Tourism and International Investment on the African Continent" (Berlin, 09 - 12 March 2011)

Link to conference on the German Missions page: http://www.southafrica.diplo.de/Vertretung/suedafrika/en/__pr/1__GIC/2011/03/03__ICD__Seminar__March__2011.html Link to conference on ICD Webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/experienceafrica/index.php?en_the-rise-of-africa

b). The German Missions in South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland publishwd a report about the ICD event: The Power of Africa 2012 - "Africa as a Stronger Actor on the International Stage" (Paris, May 2nd - 4th, 2012):

Link to conference on the German Missions page: http://www.southafrica.diplo.de/Vertretung/suedafrika/en/__pr/1__GIC/2012/04/04-ICD-power-of-Africa.html

Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/experienceafrica/index.php?en_roa2011

c). The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UCTAD) reports on the lecture of Mr. Petko Draganov (Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD) on 28 May 2010 at the ICD event: The International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy 2010 (Berlin, 23 - 30 May, 2010) Link to the conference on the UNCTAD webpage: http://archive.unctad.org/templates/webflyer.asp?docid=13349&intItemID=4899&lang=1 Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_symposium2010_reviews

d.) The US Embassy in Berlin reports on the participation of H. E. Amb. Philip Murphy (Ambassador of the USA to Germany) on May 28, 2010 during the ICD Event: "Understanding Afghanistan and Central Asia: Supporting Democracy and Stability - The Path Ahead" (Berlin, 28th – 30th May 2010)

Link on the Embassy of USA webpage: http://germany.usembassy.gov/murphy_052810.html

In addition, please see here a report by the NATO organization referring to this event of the ICD and also mentioning that NATO supported this event, please see the link the below and scroll down: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_63992.htm?selectedLocale=en

Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_symposium2010_understanding-afghanistan

e). The US Embassy in Berlin reports on the participation of H. E. Amb. Philip D. Murphy (Ambassador of the USA to Germany) on September 10, 2010 in the ICD opening of the Floodwall Exhibition (Berlin September 10 - October 15, 2010)

Link on the Embassy of USA webpage: http://germany.usembassy.gov/about/ambassador/speeches/2010/09/10/floodwall/ Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_conferences_loam_floodwall-exhibition

f). H.E. Dr. Makase Nyaphisi (Ambassador of Lesotho to Germany) participates on the 07th March, 2012 during the ICD Berlin International Economics Congress

Link on the Embassy of Lesotho webpage: http://www.lesothoembassy.de/news/2012_Berlin_IEC.php

Link to the Lecture on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkw_26gsQOQ&list=PLDF7421E5B334B421&index=3&feature=plpp_video

Link to Conference Reviews on ICD Webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomacyandtheeconomy/index.php?en_biec-2012_review

Link to conference on ICD webpage: www.biec.de

g). The Honorable Alfred Sant (Former Prime Minister of Malta; Currently Member of Malta’s Parliament) delivers a lecture on 8 November 2009 in Berlin at "A World without Walls: An International Congress on Interdependence and CD“(Berlin, 06 - 09 November, 2009)

Link on the Alfred Sant webpage: http://www.alfredsant.org/pages/dassingle.asp?id=203

Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_symposium_world-without-walls

For the same event:

The Honorable Sir James Mancham (Founding President of the Seychelles) delivers a lecture on the 6th of November, 2009 "A World without Walls: An International Congress on Interdependence and CD“ (Berlin, 06 - 09 November, 2009) Link the lecture on Sir James Mancham's webpage: http://jamesmancham.com/activities.php Link to photos of the lecture on Sir James Mancham's webpage: http://jamesmancham.com/gallery.php?&start=60 Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_symposium_world-without-walls

For the same event:

The French renowned newspapers La Tribune and La Post covering the participation of Ségolène Royal in the event: http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/international/20091110trib000442141/segolene-royal-si-sarkozy-redoute-un-president-europeen-fort-il-a-tort.html

http://archives-lepost.huffingtonpost.fr/article/2009/11/08/1780554_segolene-royal-invitee-d-honneur-de-l-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-a-berlin-pour-le-20e-anniversaire-de-la-chute-du-mur.html

For the same event:

President Email Constantinescu (Former President of Romania) has uploaded a number of the speeches that he has delivered at the ICD in recent years including the above mentioned event – the first link): http://www.constantinescu.ro/en/discursuri/speeches30.htm Please see additional speeches of President Constantinescu which were held at other ICD events below:

http://www.constantinescu.ro/en/discursuri/speeches43.htm#_ftn1 http://www.constantinescu.ro/en/discursuri/speeches44.htm http://www.constantinescu.ro/en/discursuri/speeches37.htm

h). The Goethe Institute in Ljubljana reports on the ICD program "Germany Meets Slovenia – A Forum for Young Leaders (Slovenia, June 13th - 17th, 2012): Link to the program in the ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/germanymeetsslovenia/index.php?en Link to the Goethe Institute in Ljubljana page: http://www.goethe.de/ins/si/lju/ver/de9107644v.htm i). Conference Title: The Ankara Conference on Peace building & Conflict Resolution – “Using Cultural Diplomacy as a Tool to Build Sustainable Peace” (Ankara, April 17th - 19th, 2012)

Please find below a link to the Slovenian Embassy in Turkey, which reported about the event:

http://ankara.embassy.si/index.php?id=1320&L=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=12834&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=16&cHash=22ad97d142

More links: http://www.ecmi.de/press/details/the-ankara-conference-on-peacebuilding-and-conflict-resolution-469/

Link to conference lectures (in total 45 lectures) on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE5CB2F7A6D8123AF&feature=plcp Link to conference on ICD webpage (where you can see the program and list of speakers): www.ankara-conference.org

J). The German Federal Agency for Political Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung – BPB) published reports and documentation about the ICD Event Series "Black History Month 2009" (Berlin, January 20-Febrauary 29th, 2009): Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/blackhistorymonth/index.php?de Link to the reports BPB website: http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/dokumentation/127381/black-history-month

k). Conference Title: The International Conference on Cultural Diplomacy & the UN - "Cultural Diplomacy & Soft Power in an Interdependent World: The Opportunities for Global Governance" (New York City & Washington D.C., February 21st - 24th, 2012)

Link to NYU (Law Department) University reporting on the event: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ALVAREZ_JOSE_ICD_CONFERENCE

More: http://www.mville.edu/news-a-events/news/news-features/3133-kendra-white.html

Link to conference lectures on YouTube (in total 34 lectures): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB91A1240BACCCE81&feature=plcp Link to conference on ICD webpage: www.un-culturaldiplomacy-conference.org

l). Conference Title: The ICD Annual Academic Conference on Cultural Diplomacy 2011 “Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations: New Actors, New Initiatives, New Targets” (Berlin, December 15th - 18th, 2011)

Link to a protest against the Greek Government and the Deputy Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Thodoros Pangalos, who participated in the event and was confronted by protestors; the protesters filmed the event themselves and published on YouTube with over 28,000 views:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzEI3XFvUCM

Link to conference lectures on YouTube (in total 29 lectures) http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBF4062F093F322E4&feature=plcp Link to conference on ICD webpage: www.icd-academy.org

m). The German Federal Agency for Political Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung – BPB) published reports and documentation about the ICD Event Series "Black History Month 2009" (Berlin, January 20-Febrauary 29th, 2009): Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/blackhistorymonth/index.php?de Link to the reports BPB website: http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/dokumentation/127381/black-history-month

n). The Honorable Sir James Mancham (Founding President of the Seychelles) delivers a lecture on the April 15, 2010 as a part of the "USA meets Europe Forum” from April 22-25 in New York City. Link the lecture on Sir James Mancham's webpage: http://www.eturbonews.com/15484/former-seychelles-president-heads-new-york-deliver-lecture-pirac Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?event-review-usame-2010-04

I think that the sources provided here are sufficient, but I will continue to find more and to provide more neutral verified information about ICD activities

--Hessin fahem (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For Arthur Rubin our very own Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger!

 * Regarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6QA9VEpVjw ? 99.109.124.61 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User Warnings and Percieved Fairness.
Recently, on my talk page the following question was asked:

"Where is the below warning on Arthur Rubin's page? He attacked me on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as well. If he hadn't you wouldn't have removed his comments."

My first reaction was to point to the fact that the removal in question was for talking about user conduct, not for personal attacks, that it was specifically labeled as not being a criticism, and to the fact that your very next reply and all subsequent replies were 100% about article content.. (Why warn someone who clearly "gets it"?)

On the other hand, I want to be scrupulously fair and unbiased in my work as a Mediator, so I went back over your comment with a fine tooth comb. I hope you understand my reason for doing so.

Looking at the edit, I think that is could be argued that these two comments:

"We can all agree that XB70Valyrie is abrasive in his comments."

"he seems to have come to the conclusion that the other editors are all stooges of or paid by the Kochs"

...may stray into the area probated by WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA. So, to be fair, I am going to issue a warning for those.

When I warn users, I use the warnings listed here:

Template messages/User talk namespace

and am picking Template:Uw-npa1, the lowest level of warning. Also, please note that you are allowed to delete anything placed on your own talk page, including this warning. Here it is:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On one of the talk pages or user talk pages, he made a comment which I read as his agreeing he had been uncivil. But I can see your point.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Looking it over, there is no excuse for the second comment except as a specific discussion about the user's activity, which is inappropriate on DRN.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This should be an interesting social experiment. This "why did you warn me and not the other person?" argument comes up again and again. I have never tried giving a warning for minor incivility based on one of those arguments before; it sort of feels like I am being manipulated. If, as I suspect, I still end up once again being portrayed as if I were part of some vast conspiracy involving a Wikipedia page I have never heard of outside of DRN, I will never do it again. Again, I appreciate you taking it in the spirit I sent it in. I hope that this will help in my efforts to mediate the conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole idea that <> is mistaken. No one can do everything good together that he might be able to do if done once separately. If we start punishing people for failing to do good deeds, we will end up with no good being done at all. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning
This user seems to have fun misemploying his administrator rights and arbitrarily deletes articles.
 * The article List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature does not contain any original research (NOR) and all information can be verified by establishing reliable sources (V). Burden of evidence is on my side. The article is a new project and sources will be added. BLP does not apply as this is a list, not a biographical article. If you delete an article next time, please abide by Wikipedia's deletion policies and leave time for a user to challenge a proposed deletion. Thanks. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It contained information about living persons, some with no potential source. If you want to write an article listing those people who a notable person reports is a potential candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature, that would be reasonable.  WP:BLP applies to any statement about a living person, not just articles about living people.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First year of law school
Hello, Arthur -- I hope the first year of law school was good to you! Famspear (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Further information here: --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere where either you or I has been accused of edit warring there. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you know now that it's an ANI discussion since you commented there. Anyway, you mentioned that you weren't going to comment on the video, but I noticed that someone with the handle arubin5888 replied to the video on the Youtube page about an hour ago.  Just FYI, I'm not asking for a reply or anything...basically just wanted to let you know in case it was someone else posing as you. I'd want to know if it were me.  Anyway, sorry you have to deal with all this crap.  Good luck! Quinn &#10041;SUNSHINE  19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant I wasn't going to comment here on the video, although I should have used another of my Google IDs to comment. YouTube is still a bastion of free speech, including the right to reply to lies and misleading videos. (Although, the article on Uri Geller notes that he had a video critical of him taken down, which had 9 seconds of potential copyright violation.  I've never complained about a YouTube video before, even though Alex Jones has spent about 3 minutes of one of his programs to complain about me.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly...and I'm thinking you're in that beehive now. Look, I'm not going to tell you what you already know, but IF you work to keep these propaganda mongers at bay, they oftentimes do resort to all means to attack, including offsite coordinations. You're not an island, so if you need help, simply ask. I'll do whatever I can.--MONGO 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of notable enemies, I'm afraid. Not counting the ones due to my USENet activities, we have Ilena Rosenthal, Alex Jones, Carl Hewitt, and XB70?  Well, maybe he's not notable.  I believe Archimedes Plutonium still has me on his hit list.  I hope I have, at least, some allies, if not friends.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To Arthur Rubin: I reckon that you are on the side of the angels, but I do not usually know enough about what you are doing to intervene on your behalf. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A source you might like
Arthur, I've noticed youre interested in Finance, in particular in the work of Shiller such as his book Animal Sprits. I think you might enjoy his new book Finance and the Good Society. The first half is far and away the best overview of the Finance sector I've seen. The second half has proposals for reform, many of which seem surprisingly compatible with Libertarian thinking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this! The bad dream is finally over :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 04:19, June 16, 2012‎

04:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ICD
Wikipedia Campaign by SkaraB and Media Hound aginst the ICD Continues the meantime and as you can see, SkaraB/Mediahound is celebrating its “VICTORY” to harm the ICD and continuing with the campaign to harm the ICD in every possible way. Now “they” are going through the ICD Advisory Board members list and deleting references to the ICD. For example, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, the Vice President of the ICD got “a visit” from them and they deleted any reference to the ICD, ignoring the fact that in her own website the Vice President mentions her role on the icd and of course it is also mentioned in the ICD website: See here (scroll down to the very bottom): http://ehennicotschoepges.lu/cv/ See here wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erna_Hennicot-Schoepges&action=history The anonymous editor is continuing like that with all of the pages of ICD members and will probably continue on the hunt against the ICD any way possible. This is of course not good for the Wikipedia and administrators and high level management of Wikipedia must be involved in this as this can have consequences for Wikipedia. I will now continue to observe and watch the activity of SkaraB and Media Hound and document all of their activities. At the same time, I will deliver the findings to Wikipedia authorities in order to stop this activity, as it has been going on for years already.

I will appreciate your advice here. --Hessin fahem (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If a real third party commented on board membership, it might be allowable. I'm afraid I agree that you haven't pointed to a source other than ICD and its board members that it is notable.  I probably wouldn't have removed it, as it may be of significance to the board members that they are on the board, but we'd need another source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I too tend to agree that perhaps her article should in fact mention her involvement with the ICD. According to the ICD website she is vice chairman of the board; and her own webpage links to the ICD. The paragraph that I deleted was a bit misleading, though, since it merely said that she was a member of the advisory board. That board has a large number of members, ranging from former prime ministers to the lead singer of Boney M; seeing that we have not been able to establish that the ICD is a notable organization I think that ordinary membership of the advisory board is not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article, at least not without any clear evidence that this is a post that, in Arthur Rubin's words, is of any significance to the members in question.
 * Skara B  10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you mention Boney M, please see Once upon a time in Russia . JRSpriggs (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing! I'm so glad I stopped by this talk page. :) — m a k o ๛  16:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My fav. Arthur Rubin quote
From the NWO (conspiracy theory) archives (usernames trimmed to avoid stirring any trouble):

So, how is law school going? John Shandy`  &bull; talk 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N
I went to RS/N for reasoning on using the Mondale op-ed for "facts" . TFD, of course, posits that anything Mondale writes should be a "fact" if Mondale asserts it (well -- not his exact owrds). Problem is the source also assets the Koch's livein Florida - meaning there is an eensy chance the op-ed was not fact-checked . Collect (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR at ALEC
Your recent editing history at American Legislative Exchange Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. I still claim that two of my reverts were of WP:BLP, and I'm still making a minimal revert to preserve WP:BLP, in addition to adding a few tags.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. I wish you had not continued with your edit war after my warning. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps all of you could ask for page protection and hash it out on the article talkpage.MONGO 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds promising. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal number
Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_warring_in_Cardinal_number

--Gonzalcg (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
You write:

Badly formatted; you are the one with the most reverts, and you failed to put any persons's name or sign the post. I think it will be ignored unless one of the people you are complaining about decides to format it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1) The main point is not my English, nor formating, etc., but the inaccuracies in the history section. Some warning should appear for preventing the reader. It is my main concern.

2) I sent the link for the Cantor's work online.

3) I have the very only historical article in bibliography. I can privately send it, but it is not free.

4) I simply forget to sign the edition. But I sent a link and it is clear that I cannot hidden my identity.

5) Is so bad the English?:


 * "This section has some inaccuracies that must be corrected"


 * Deiser affirms that Cantor did not provide a precise definition of the notion of cardinal number

affirms => writes, says, etc ???? It makes any differences?

Dieser writes:


 * "Cardinal numbers are among the most important concepts of set theory, but they

are not easy to define. Although Georg Cantor had built his set theory on ordinal and cardinal numbers, he did not provide a precise definition of these notions. The complexity of the problem was understood only much later."

I.e., I had inserted an almost textual citation. A very relevant citation because the section can lead to misunderstanding.

Please, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardinal_number#Some_problems_of_the_section (Wow, this yields a paper! :-) )

Essentially, the problem is that a encyclopedic article should avoid all kind of misunderstandings because the reader is not an expert in the subject, but somebody which is beginning to learn the matter.

Apologize the bad English

Carlos --Gonzalcg (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I see your point, although I don't see any evidence for your statement that Cantor only discussed infinite cardinalities.  However, due to your unfortunate grasp of English and my insufficient grasp of early mathematical German, I can't determine what you or Cantor is actually saying.  (I have read modern articles on set theory in German, but I know what the terms mean; trying to decipher both the language and the naive mathematics is difficult.)


 * Still, per Wikipedia guidelines, there shouldn't be warnings in the article. What you should do is place  following the disputed statement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now tagged appropriately. This should bring it to the attention of other Wikipedians, without adding "spoiler warnings".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, Cantor writes about finite sets and finite cardinal. But it is not true that: "Cantor first established cardinality as an instrument to compare finite sets". See the Galileo's paradox:
 * "equal," "greater," and "less," are not applicable to infinite, but only to finite, quantities.
 * The original editor of the section thinks that Cantor invented the one-to-one correspondence, also for finite sets. This is the problem. Dieser writes that: "Albert of Saxony, who explicitly states that two multitudes are equal in size if there is a one–one correspondence between them." (p. 125) It makes no sense try to catch a phantom.--Gonzalcg (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lagrange's Trigonometric Identities
I see you were quick to delete and re-delete the reference I added to Lagrange's trigonometric identities, claiming I have no expertise. If you had bothered to check, you would have found that I have four degrees in physics and mathematics, which plenty of "expertise" for this article. In any case, I'm tired of fighting with you antisocial Wikipedia nerds and your endless deletions. Delete whatever you want; I'm sure you can justify it by citing WP:XYZ or WP:ZZR or something. But maybe you should read this article: Are Deletionists Harming Wikipedia?. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I have more relevant degrees than you do, and my unpublished work is not suitable for Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gaahh! I lie mortally wounded by the sheer force of your impeccable logic! I'll let you get back to enforcing WP:MXR and WP:YPM and whatever else it is you do. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov Article
I see you've also deleted my contribution to the Isaac Asimov article. Congratulations -- you got even with me. I guess you got your revenge. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just deleted the reference to your page. The contribution, sourced to reliable sources, remains intact.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for taking the trouble to do that. But let's not pretend that you stumbled on the Asimov article by accident. You got angry and searched Wikipedia for contributions I've made, hoping to find something you could delete so you could get even. Congratulations -- you found something, deleted it, and got even. Well played.  You win. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I searched Wikipedia for references to your site, which you admit is copied from Wikipedia, so is a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why were you searching Wikipedia for references to my site? Because you wanted revenge. Well, you got it. And the Wikipedia articles on my site were written entirely by me; I put them there to preserve them after they'd been deleted. (Nice try with that copyright violation thing, though.) And again, congratulations on your successful effort to get even with me. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations check
Please check my citations sir, i am so desperate and tired that i may quit anytime now, please consider Arthur Rubin (talk)  - Ballisticizer (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment welcome
I played with some of your data. Please stop by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of My User Page
Arthur Rubin: I just noticed how you vandalized my User page. Pretty low class. I hope you feel good about yourself. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOBAN applies. --S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * S. Rich: OK, thanks. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion on Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that Arthur Rubin made the necessary and proper apology on the ANI page. Now that the matter is closed, both editors can (should and will) move on.--S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. I expect this to be the end of this matter. SimpsonDG (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Years
You said that Millennia start with years ending in 1 and end with years ending in 0. If so, why was the new millennia celebrated on 1st January, 2000, not 2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteWolf55555 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * People will find any excuse to celebrate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no real event whose anniversary was being celebrated. So it was just a celebration of the digits rolling over like the way you may notice that your car has another 100,000 miles on its odometer when it goes from 199,999.9 to 200,000.0 . Most people accept common superstition rather than the official definitions used by the elite. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding possible socks of XB70Valyrie
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * ^ WP:DTTR. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 14:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Somedifferentstuff is probably a sockpuppet of User:Mbhiii, User:Welhaven, User:Attleboro and others. This is just what he does when he you disagree with him. 108.123.23.219 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think he's a sock of any of those. Maybe someone else.  In any case, it was deserved, this time, as we've each reverted 3 times in rapid succession.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Arthur, if you were offended by my post I apologize. I have only the greatest respect for your contributions. – Lionel (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine
I reverted all the edits by Stepbed1 aka User:JarlaxleArtemis because he is a banned editor. Feel free to restore any of your own changes. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's JarlaxleArtemis? Oh, well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the content is objectionable, shouldn't you revdel the text of my revisions, as well? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The revdel is because JA's modus operandi is to get his disruptive views into the page history. He doesn't care if they're reverted.  He can't get the idea into his head that he, personally (as opposed to his political views) is not welcome here.  But once I revdel his contributions, your revisions just show as restoring the page from a blank, so I don't think I need to revdel yours.  Cheers, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

IP Socks
Hello Arthur, I just noticed you've been knocking heads with a nutcase on at least a couple of articles over the cause of the Colorado Wildfires. I saw something interesting that I'm not quite sure what to do with, since I'm a less-experienced editor. Check out these DNS resolutions for 4 of the IP addresses:

adsl-108-195-138-75.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-142-236.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-139-218.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-146-181.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

In case it isn't obvious enough just due to these IPs repeatedly inserting the same global warming nonsense, I think these addresses pretty much make it a slam dunk that you're dealing with a sock. Unfortunately, it appears that you have to be an admin to initiate an SPI for an IP user, so I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Belchfire (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not call that a sockpuppet. It just appears the person's IP is rotating and changing periodically. 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a sockpuppet, because he talks to himself, and uses his multiple voices to imply support for his views. I don't think he's violated 3RR (as a group) lately, but he did revert 3 times in 2 hours.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also a sock because he uses it for external link spamming - a defined form of disruption - and then when he was blocked in an attempt to reform his behavior he used the other IPs for block evasion to continue disrupting the project with his external link spam. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

vandalism?
Hello Arthur, in good spirits I hope. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your libalous usage of the terms vandalism to describe the recent edit to pharmakeia. You should not charectorize honest efforts at improving an article as vandalism as you have. Hope you have a good day. 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur. I have noticed that you have also charectorized the edit to Petrochemical. As odd as it may seem to you propylene glycol is indeed used as an ingrediant in Louis Trauth brand lemon aid served to inmates in the montgomery county jail in Dayton Ohio USA. Truth is stranger then fiction. Before labeling factual edits vandelism you should educate yourself on the subject first. http://www.trauthdairy.com/ 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not notable, even if it were true, and if you had a source. It would be libelous if not true, so we must remove it unless you find a reliable source.  It appears it may not be vandalism, but it's not constructive.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to our article, "Because of its low chronic oral toxicity, propylene glycol was classified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) for use as a direct food additive.". It should not be confused with the much more toxic (but otherwise similar) ethylene glycol. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: pi
This is a note to let the main editors of pi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 22, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 22, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



$\pi$ (or pi) is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although it is roughly approximated by 22/7. It is a transcendental number – a number that cannot be produced with a finite sequence of algebraic operations (sums, products, powers, and roots). The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and ruler. The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random. Because its definition relates to the circle, π is found in many formulae in trigonometry and geometry, such as Euler's identity, eiπ + 1 = 0. It is also found in formulae from other branches of science, such as cosmology, number theory, statistics, fractals, thermodynamics, mechanics, and electromagnetism. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

David Weigel
Sir, that was some poor editing on your part. I found the correct url in a few seconds time, adding your tagging blather was silly, I suggest you try fixing articles before making such edits, the rest of us are not your lackeys tasked with fixing errant edits from experienced editors like yourself.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 11:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried Yahoo! News search a number of times, using different keywords, before tagging. I admit I didn't try archive.org, but still, one would expect Yahoo!'s search engine to index Yahoo! News.  Now, I didn't check who added the link, but the IP in question is known for misinterpreting (if not always outright lying) about the contents of links he wants to add.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move review
Are you aware of the move review on the Las Vegas, Nevada move? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edit to the user page of another user could give an editor the impression that you are forcing your own point. We would like to remind you that your edit appears disruptive, and such tactics could lead to a block. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution. Thank you. Arcandam (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:POINT violation is yours. Ingrid's statement is no more notable than Nadia's (by any rational interpretation), or mine (by your interpretation that her opinion is notable because she has an article).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I strongly recommend that you stop before you are blocked again. Arcandam (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. I never said her opinion is notable because she has an article BTW. p.p.s. Nice parrots!

WP:3RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Arcandam (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I have 2 reverts on this article in the past week.  You have 5 in the past 2 hours.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point like you did is a blockable offense, even if you did it just once. Arcandam (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make a point. Only recently has anyone attempted to justify Ingrid's (unofficial) comment being in the article.  And that argument (that the media has commented on Ingrid) also justifies Nadia's (unofficial) opinion being in the article, because the media has also commented on that.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You wrote in your editsummary: "I may regret this, but something has to be done about the absurd reverts being done by Arcandam. There is little possible justification for Ingrid being here and Nadia not". If you honestly do not understand you can revert yourself and ask for an explanation here (I have your page watchlisted). If you continue with this kind of behaviour you will be blocked yet again. Arcandam (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Until less than an hour ago, there has not been any justification for Ingrid's opinion being in the article. Nadia's confused opinion also has media coverage; why not include whatever it was she actually said?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Typo
You made a typo in my name. Would you be so kind to correct it? You can find it here. My name is Arcandam, not Arkandam. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was the anon, not me. No offense intended; I'd correct it if it were my mistake.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. Meth is a hell of a drug. Arcandam (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a stupid question but do you have a recall page? And are you "open to trouting", or do you consider trouts to be a personal attack? Arcandam (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not open to recall. After taking a complicated position clearly required by the rules, which seriously upset both sides in a dispute, I decided that I couldn't come up with a recall system which would allow recall if I seriously did something wrong, but wouldn't be activated if I just upset people.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense, most recall pages I've seen are rather bureaucratic. Some people do not appreciate being trouted, do you have a problem with it? Arcandam (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with being trouted. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate! Feel free to retrout me if you want to! Trouting is sexy. Arcandam (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an MMORPG, its more like a FPS. And on this server friendly fire is on. Look at my uniform. We are on the same team. Arcandam (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Progressive insight
Ok, I have a small problem, today's Arcandam today does not fully agree with yesterday's Arcandam. The longer I think about it the more likely it seems that you were not trying to make a point. On the other hand I still understand why it looked like making a point to me. So that's what you get, a half-assed apology: I apologize for underestimating you, but I think you are smart enough to figure out why it seemed that way to me, and we probably have to agree to disagree about some things. Removing my comments was not an option because you already replied so I struck through some of 'em. Arcandam (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote a proposal based on 108.18.174.123's proposal near the bottom of this page. Arcandam (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Launched ANI against the Michigan IP
FYI I just started |an ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan. Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

in conclusion, how about rotating the labels
oh, I remembered and I think this is the last one. The most funny interpretation is "to rotate the labels". According to this interpretation, if one rotates the labels with the angle α, the species rotates with αn when defined on n labels. Here the link with the polynomial machine is broken.
 * -(-X)) = X but X-X does not simplify.

no article to vandalise ! Best Regards, Nicolae-boicu (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC) - To rotate the labels one needs to rotate the variables of the cycle index and to do this one needs to rotate the natural numbers. Did you ever rotated natural numbers ? Nicolae-boicu (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Skeptic to alarmist?
I have seen some news stories on Google News that Richard A. Muller who it said had been a prominent scientific skeptic of global warming had converted to the alarmist position. Since I have not been following this as closely as you have, what is up with that? Does it matter? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ping! JRSpriggs (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. Muller originally questioned the methodology of the ground-based figures (possibly including data selection bias, or improper processing of data error estimates, and "correction" of ground-based data to match other estimates).  He then ran the data "correctly" and got approximately the same results (a slightly smaller increases for the 1990s and 2000s).  The fact that he was funded by a climate change denial organization may have led to the conclusion that he was a denier, rather than an honest skeptic.
 * If the Michigan Kid weren't vanadalizing the climate change section by including scandal-sheets, we might have properly included these facts in the respective articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid and Nadia
As discussed at the article talk page, I am of the opinion that having both Ingrid and Nadia in the article is fine, as long as we also have Romney's response to PETA in the article as well (which we do). I removed the POV tag in that section a few days ago, when I inserted Romney's response to PETA. Frankly, I just don't see the problem. However, I look forward to discussing it with you at the article talk page. And I do think that your recent edits at that article are a lot more block-worthy than mine. :-) Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't recall when it was, but there had been consensus that none of the statements (falsely) attributed to animal welfare organizations were both important and relevant. (There actually was a third statement by another representative of MaSPCA.) It's possible that the consensus has changed, but I haven't seen any evidence of further discussion on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What statement by a PETA official do you think Romney was responding to?108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also posed this question for you at the article talk page.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seamus-gate
FYI, the cited source from Business Insider called it "Seamus-gate", but I'm glad to leave it out.166.147.120.24 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

56 (number)
Your argument “Never heard of it” is ridiculous. Are you pretending to know everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soufflenin (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I never heard of it, it requires a reference. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.Soufflenin (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorta looks like part commercial spam and part non-notable loosey goosey bunch of semirandom artists, who can't even maintain a snailmail address for their "HQ". But I don't really care, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notifying about declined speedy deletion
I have deprodded your SDR under A7 per Forensics (musician) as a couple of refs (ie Knowledge Magazine) sounds reliable (and A7 requires  a lower standard than notability). Notability under GNG or WP:BAND is however still questionable, so feel free to proceed via AfD. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the article appears to be an exact copy from the source http://last.fm/music/forensics, and thus plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cavarrone: Those sources don't support any evidence of notability, except that KMag interviewed him.  Whatever.
 * As I wrote above, A7 =/= Notability. A7 " is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" and "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source", the article in itself claims some significance ("pioneering the ‘111’ movement", "collaborating with other producers at a range of tempos", "ran Methodology Recordings" and so on) and also has a couple of reliable sources, if these claims are worth of notice is another question, I don't see how A7 could be applied here. Cavarrone (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't a "credible claim of significance" actually have to refer to something which might be significant, if accurate? I really don't see anything there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends from what the (cited and uncited) sources say in relation to these claims... pioneening a musical movement, ran a label, collaborating with other (possibly notable) producers could be a "credible claim of significance" (IMHO). And being object of multiple interviews from a reliable source could be considered a decent starter. At any rate, I'm far from saying that the subject is notable. Cavarrone (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @JBSpriggs: Seems too short to be a copyright violation.  But I'm not a lawyer.  Also, I hesitate to suggest a combined speedy deletion reason:  What isn't a copyright violation doesn't suggest notability.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

mass hysteria and conspiracy theories
He Arthur, I saw your revert of my removal of categories at Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations. I removed it, because with the Amsterdam sex crimes case in the cat, I couldn't see those as a common denominator (no sources of that at least of mass hysteria (first time I read that article btw; weird things happening ;-)) or conspiracy theories and figured members of the cat would not have these "attributes" always. How do you think about that? Should Amsterdam sex crimes case be in there in your opinion? L.tak (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I thought the category was about child abuse at day care centers, not child abuse by day care workers, so Amsterdam sex crimes case wouldn't fit.  Your removal of the catmain tag, although I didn't revert it, might be a significant change which justifies both inclusion of Amsterdam sex crimes case in the category and removal of the categories.  I don't know.  All I can say is that it's not necessary for all articles in category A to belong in category B for category A to belong in category B.  It makes my reason for restoring the categories incorrect, but it doesn't seriously effect the argument that the category is about "conspiracy theories" and "mass hysteria".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the abuse took place at the centers, so by that argument it would fit; but it seems that there is a difference between the general cat and the 80ies/90ies phenomenon that is hard to address (hence my removal of cat main). You are right however on the fact that not all cat-cats need to be suitable for every included article.... Tricky business. L.tak (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism...
Rather than reverting, I suggest you would have done better to just fill in the missing word. It should be pretty obvious what it was. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it wasn't obvious, and it's not obvious that either statement is supported by either source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask you to revert your revert so that there is no appearance of edit-warring. I'm going to then insert a citation to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/nyregion/connecticut/10polct.html?_r=1, which talks about God, guns and gays as wedge issues, so as to avoid the synthesis.
 * As I tried to explain initially, it is much more productive to discuss and cooperatively edit than to constantly revert. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It's one word. If someone really thinks that restoring one word while adding two requested citations is edit-warring, they're welcome to try to track down an admin insane enough to block me for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to report you, but if L... does, I suspect an admin would be willing to block you, per Wikipedia policy. However, this time, I'll go to the trouble of verifying your sources, and determine whether you are combining two sources to support the sentence, neither of which supports the whole sentence.  If you are, that's WP:SYNTH.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and report me if you think it'll stick. It might; admins vary in quality and carefulness. You could luck out like Lionelt did and find someone who won't even check your claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously can't understand simple English sentences. I said I wasn't going to report you.  Under the circumstances, now, if someone does report you on a board that I monitor, I probably will comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously like to make things personal. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

notability on 1982 births
Thank you for clarifying why my edits were reverted and understanding that I was editing in good faith. A couple questions:

1) Where are the guidelines for notability on the calendar year pages? My sense was that if they were sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia entry than they would have enough notability to be listed on this page. Where are the guidelines saying that common year pages are only meant for "sufficiently important" people? Or is this limited for aesthetic/readability issues or another reason I'm not thinking of?

2) Which one of the entries were not blue-linked? I re-checked them and (unless one of the pages was deleted in the interim) all of them still had their own pages. C5mjohn (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please check WP:WikiProject Years and its talk page archives, but there is general consensus that birth/death entries on year pages require more than just having an article on that specific person. In "recent years" (since Wikipedia started), WP:RY provides more restrictions.  There seems to be general consensus in regard people born on, say, July 5, 1982, would be that 1982 -> July 5 -> Births in 1982, but not the reverse.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WARNING
In your revert, you made demonstrably false claims in the edit comment. In specific, you said "Actually, it was YOUR bold change." In reality, my edit was a revert of Belchfire's bold deletion. This deletion was the bold edit; the material deleted had accumulated over time from multiple editors, showing consensus.

You may not have noticed, since you reverted without bothering to talk about it, but there was discussion of Belchfire's bold deletion and those who participated were in agreement about it being a bad idea. In short, Belchfire boldly removed material against consensus, and you edit-warred to help him. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

This notice is a record of your mistake. If you repeat your error, I will include this notice when I go to ANI to have you censured. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Looking at the presence of "wedge" in the file, you introduced it on August 8 (UTC).  It was reversed twice (by me), and you restored it twice.  It was left in place for a few edits on August 8.  Then, on August 11, Belchfire removed it, you restored it, and I removed it again.  The incorrect (per wedge issues) use of "wedge issues" by the source is not my problem.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Belchfire's revert had been of one word, you might have a point here. Unfortunately, he reverted the entire "After the fall of" sentence, which I can't claim authorship of. I did work on that sentence, cleaning up the English (as that's my native tongue and I can use it at a professional level) and adding citations.
 * Even if it was just about the word, you'd be mistaken about the correctness of its use. You cite wedge issues, but this is a red link. Besides, Wiktionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, is it? I cited a common dictionary (probably m-w), to show that I was using the word correctly. It's also very, very easy to find reliable sources which refer to some or all of these as "wedge issues" in precisely those words.
 * But you say it's not that word, either. I think you need to explain yourself -- not here, but on the article talk page -- so that we don't have to guess why you keep reverting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was wedge issue, and the point was brought up by an editor which did not revert you. m-w.com reports "a political issue that divides a candidate's supporters or the members of a party"; in this case, the issue is used to distinguish the candidate's or party's position from that of the other parties'.  Completely different.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, wedge issue agrees with m-w.com, and both are consistent with article usage, as well as with the example I gave on the talk page. What's your issue here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that you argue for the same text to be used in two different articles using different arguments makes it difficult to determine which or your arguments have been completely refuted. At least, unlike the Michigan Kid, you make arguments on the talk pages of the articles you want the text to appear in, rather than that of loosely related pages.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know who that is, and I seem to remember that I was the one who suggested that you response "not here, but on the article talk page". As for which ones are refuted, I can help: none. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest, though, that the arguments for and against the connection between the Tea Party and social conservatism be placed in one article, with the exception of the additional argument that, even if it were an example of social conservatism, it wouldn't be a particularly good or important example. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you pick a topic and stick to it. I could swear we were talking about the notion of conservative wedge issues, but now you're talking about the social conservatism of the Tea Party. The latter was brought up on Social conservatism but I reached out to Tea Party movement to get the attention of editors who might be knowledgeable on the subject. Since the question is whether the teabaggers should be mentioned on Social conservatism, that seems like the right place to discuss it. Once they are, the editors interested in the movement are free to update its page if they see fit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping vs. Votestacking
Hello Arthur. Thanks for your input on votestacking. I felt pretty strongly that there was something less than totally up-and-up about what was going on there, simply based on where Still-24 was shopping for new eyeballs. Given your detailed knowledge of policy, I would like to get your take on a recent, nearly identical incident involving the same user. While I suppose what is being done here might be within the letter of policy, I think the intent should be pretty obvious: he's not looking for neutrality. He's trying to sway consensus in a given direction. I think that's disruptive. Thoughts? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue was whether to keep some well-cited material about sexual abuse, so I went to Sexual abuse. I could also go up the hierarchy of scouting-related articles, but given the American focus of Wikipedia, I think Boy Scouts of America is about as high as it goes. If you have an alternate recommendation for a neutral, relevant and populated article to drop a notice on, feel free to share it. If you don't, then don't bother accusing me of anything. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That link (asking editors of Homosexuality to look at Focus on the Family) is clearly forum shopping, even though an almost neutral request. It's not technically "vote stacking", because the request is (almost) neutral.  Any rational person would believe that anyone able to edit Homosexuality in keeping with the guidelines would be unlikely to be able to edit Focus on the Family in keeping with the guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's odd: I'm a rational person yet I see no problems with the editors of Homosexuality also editing a section of Focus on the Family that concerns homosexuality. I don't understand your reasoning here. Anyhow, according to policy, what I did was fully acceptable and not forum-shopping in the least. I suggest you re-read WP:CANVAS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have to assume you're a rational person. But if you don't understand my reasoning, I may have to change my mind.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You had an opportunity to explain your reasoning. Instead, you launched a personal attack. Again. Why do you keep doing this? You're apparently a mature adult and not stupid, so what's motivating you to keep insulting me when I'm trying very hard to remain civil and engage productively? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI:  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've explained that WP:CANVAS allows this. I chose a single, relevant target that is relevant to the topic and left a neutral invitation. Feel free to go to WP:ANI or something so it can boomerang all over you. 21:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right; definitely forum shopping, and WP:BOOMERANG. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think I did something wrong, feel free to report me. Otherwise, I'd appreciate if you kept your opinions to yourself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any guidance on the appropriate course of action? I see education as a logical first choice, but that seems to be off the table here.  It would be helpful if we could end the pattern of disruption.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a WP:RFC/U? Even it were solely a content dispute (which it isn't), there's no good place for a content dispute over multiple articles.  Remember, of course, that the conduct of all participants in an WP:RFC/U may be considered by Arbcom, if it comes to that.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the matter is clear enough for WP:ANI or WP:AN. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that says a lot about the strength of your accusations, doesn't it? Perhaps you should take a hint from this and back off. This way, if you ever do find something to report me for, it won't boomerang against you when they notice your pattern of stalking me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stalking
Please do not follow me around to harass me with false allegations. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm following "Still-<stable IP>" around because he has no idea what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are. If he's following you, that's another matter.  I'm not following you around, and I don't know what allegations you're talking about.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you're following me around because you think it's fun to bait me. Cut it out or I'll report you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it comes to that, I'm following you around, in addition, because very few of your edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and none of your comments do. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't know why JournalScholar thinks I'm following him around. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't know why? Maybe because you followed me to the Paul Ryan talk page to harass me. Still-24-45-42-125 make sure to note this if you decide to report him. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I definitely followed Still to the page.  He was blocked for edit-warring for removing sourced material, but you can be blocked for adding (multiple times) inappropriate sourced material.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting as part of a pattern of stalking intended to intimidate editors. And, to remind you, I was blocked on the basis of a false 4RR report. But you knew that already, right? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't exactly false. WP:3RR, in addition to stating that reverting WP:BLP violations is exempt (while it should say clear WP:BLP violations), doesn't specify exactly what "user" means in "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user".  The first "user" is often used to mean a person who edits(regardless of IP or editor name changes), and using that same definition for the second "user" would exclude bot edits (but not, for the same reason, not necessarily edits attributed to a bot).  Perhaps if you request clarification at WT:3RR, this can be resolved for future occurences.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin, this has gotten to be a bad habit with you. You were stalking and harassing me a few weeks ago as well. Your past behavior shows a history of taking things very personally and bullying people with whom you disagree. Perhaps you really don't have the temperament to be an effective Wikipedia administrator, and should consider spending your time doing something else. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Following editors who continually make bad edits is a best practice on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's really not. You're not a disinterested editor just looking to fix problems, you're the sort of person who gets too caught up with trying to find wrongdoing by a specific individual. You follow them around, harass them with barely civil (and sometimes just plain uncivil) comments and vague threats. Best practice is to disengage and allow more neutral editors to deal with any actual wrongdoing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd consider that if a "neutral editor" would agree to watch your edits. You are still misinterpreting enough Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and acting on those misinterpretations, that you need to be followed.  Or blocked.  Obviously, I'm not going to block you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who needs a neutral editor when I have so many conservative ones following me around? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the so-called "conservative" editors are watching the particular articles you are ... editing, not looking for the other articles where you are trying to create consensus for your edits against evidence to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I can't even guess at what you're getting at here. These are the people who keep filing false reports against me at the drop of a hat. They're vigilant for any half-plausible basis for getting me blocked. What are they going to miss that only you can see? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 3RR report wasn't false, although some of the ANI sections have been, to say the least, questionable. I'm not sure what other false reports have been made; I'm not following you to the notice boards, only to articles and talk pages.  I'm willing, for the most part, to trust the notice board groupies to disregard your restatements of the guidelines.
 * I'm trying to get WP:3RR modified so that your actions would only be considered 3 reverts, and not 4, but it's not easy. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it would be hard. It's obvious that the intent was never to punish people for trivial changes by bots. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * another stalker/pagewatcher weighs in: 3RR is a bright line, not a permission or invitation. You don't necessarily "get" three reverts. I've blocked people for making one revert, most admins have. Also, every admin has seen a bad edit (vandalism, unsourced, removing sources, page blanking, etc) and checked contribs to see if the editor has made more such. That's not stalking, that's being a good admin. KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, it's a bright line, yet this is an ambiguity that makes it less bright. If you want people to follow rules, you need to make rules that are clear enough to be followed. If it's entirely subjective, then let's not even pretend to have rules at all; let's admit it's just Calvinball. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule here is clear; you had 4 reverts. I am now trying to get the rule changed so that you would only have 3, but it is a proposed change, rather than a "clarification".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Time formatting
Hi Arthur,

I did not understand [|this]. If there is an easy way I can add to your data using the same time formatting you use, I will be glad to get with the program. Educate me, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ach so! I just noticed your note at the top of the list saying you were using PST.  If we are subtracting hours from UTC, it makes most sense to me to subtract five hours (for Michigan time, the IP's location.)   But tracking via UTC reduces work and confusion on part of other editors.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sorry. I set my displays to local time, so I copy those times.  If you prefer UTC, that's OK.  I'm in PST2PDT (UTC -8 in "winter", UTC -7 in "summer").  It might be better to convert all the times to UTC, anyway, but I don't have a bot which will do that; nor are the entries in tables so I can paste them to a spreadsheet and do a bulk correct.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Either UTC or Michigan make the most sense to me. I don't care either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed my time preference from Eastern Time to UTC a few years ago to avoid this sort of confusion. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Arthur
Just so you know, Still is threatening to report me to 3RRN for a 1RR edit although it's actually a 0RR edit (which he claims is 2RR) since I removed an UNDUE piece. . Cheers ViriiK (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're at 2RR, and you're edit-warring to get there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * UNDUE is not an exception to 3RR; whether or not Still-24 is edit warring there, as he is on other articles, you are, as well. There is a dispute whether removing material constitutes a revert in itself; If the offending material is restored, just tag the questionable words with undue-inline and/or undue-section, and continue the discussion.  If the tags are removed, escalate to the appropriate board.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Arthur. Meanwhile, if I'm at 2RR, he prematurely used the 3RR warning against me which constituted harassment anyways.  ViriiK (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that reverting exactly once is compatible with WP:3RR and WP:BRD, and nobody would mistake it for edit-warring. But if you want to report me on WP:3RRN, I can't stop you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ignoring Still-24's comment) Not necessarily harassment. I've made 3RR warnings after one revert, if the editor seems to be edit warring on other articles, but has stopped on those.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However that wasn't the case here. I had already been on the D part of the BRD process prior to him.  ViriiK (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Need your eyes and opinion again. Can you please look at this page  Right now it's over the term "Voodoo Economics" which was a term coined by GHWB. Unfortunately, it was a short-lived term and it didn't last past the 1980 Republican Primary hence the objections. Since he fought to removed the term "Compassionate Conservatism" on the basis that it's an obsolete campaign term although it isn't, he's conveniently ignoring that Voodoo Economics is really an obsolete term. Plus Reaganomics is well-known and has many well-cited sources including academic journals where as the other term gets little to nothing during the 80's. ViriiK (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not even slightly accurate, but feel free to join in the fun. This isn't canvassing at all... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not canvassing entire communities or editors. I'm soliciting his opinion alone to myself as I stated above, not yours.  There is no "canvassing" going on here.  You're free to make up whatever you want to think though.  ViriiK (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS states that your non-neutral summary and the fact that you targeted a single person are both bad. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hooray, selective reading of the rules. I asked for his opinion and wanted to know if this was the case.  Did I ask him to intervene?  Nope.  Read the top of the page.  "However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate."  ViriiK (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bringing in specific people who you expect to be supportive of your argument is vote-stacking. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of tools
After I implemented your suggestion by removing the background material, you reverted this with the comment, "(Reverted 1 edit by StillStanding-247 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Arthur Rubin. (TW))".

While I actually agree with the revert -- the article was worse when I followed your argument to its natural conclusion -- you're going to need to backtrack on your false accusation of vandalism. Thanks! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical coincidence
Dr. Rubin:

A) Do you really think that http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=10004 is 'not much of a coincidence'? What are your criteria?  I understand that the size of the prime does not make it much of one.  I understand that this is not a randomly chosen 21-digit number, so that it is no surprise that some of its final digits are 9s and that the arbitrary start is also at least one 9.  I can see that 12 out of 21 is a rather small small-number coincidence.  These separate coincidences, however, coincide.

B) Does http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=111&submitter=Merickel really not make sense, and if so why delete before asking what it means in any case? 'Translation' in the text of the curio itself was clear enough to the editors of the Prime pages, and I worded it here, I thought, so that it was clear.  Don't you think that saying I needed a better wording would have been more appropriate if you really did not understand it?  What's meant is that the two numbers when their digital representations in each of bases 2 and 3 are read as though they were base-10 representations form primes; that generating new base-2 and base-3 representations, respectively, for these two new primes each also give primes when read as though base 10; that the two initial numbers (pre-translation numbers) given are the 4th and 44th of the numbers satisfying these criteria; and that the first of the two is the first to translate once also as a prime from its base-4 representation to the number obtained by an as-if-base-10 reading, and the second of them is the first to do this and then also have that new prime translate from its base-4 representation to a base-10 reading as a prime. Now that this is clear (Do I need to give the numbers in detail?); if it's true, is it not a coincidence worthy of the page, at least when the fact that both initial numbers lead with 234 in base 10?

C) Is all of the above moot because the Prime Pages is unreliable, as you seem to imply? What is your overall reasoning, please?  I regret that I have not tried editing in some of the others there by other authors, but I have not had time and it looks like I might run up against some wall in getting things accepted here for publication if they come from that source anyway.173.15.152.77 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A) Yes, it's not much of a coincidence. It certainly doesn't belong on any of the number pages you tried to put it on (12, 21, 99, 9?), and I don't think it belongs in mathematical coincidences, although there are possible arguments there.
 * B) No, it doesn't make much sense, and it's too complicated to be an interesting coincidence. If we had an article on translated prime, it might be marginally notable, but it still doesn't fit in 4 (number), and I would argue against its appearance in mathematical coincidence, as being too complicated.
 * C) Prime pages doesn't seem reliable for importance or interest. I'd probably accept it as reliable for the actual formulas, but we really don't need that, per WP:CALC.  It does, however, consist of submissions, and the editor doesn't seem to be a mathematical expert, or have a reputation for fact-checking (especially for the 2nd entry in 343, which would be difficult to check).  However, we do need some indication of importance before considering inclusion in the articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A) Assertion without argumentation is (or seems to be to me) somewhere between flat-out failure and dismissiveness for somebody of your capabilities. I really was asking for reasoning.  I suppose that just 99 (number) being put in the 'See alsos' of 21 (number) and 12 (number) (rather than placing the result itself there) is about all that I would concede.  No, I did not try to put it in 9 (number).  If we have these articles at all, I don't see how 99 (number) does not include this (other than the fact that it doesn't and I don't think it's worth a real challenge and my time right now).
 * B) Nonsense. It might be argued only that it's putting the cart before the horse to not have Interbase translation done first.  I did not try to put this in 4 (number).  I haven't published the whole coincidence, so it does not belong there (yet?).  The whole coincidence is interestingly more complicated than what was on mathematical coincidence for a while.  Where did the notion that simple makes it more interesting come from?  The only way simpler comes in to my thinking is where there is a dispute about the degree to which something is a coincidence.  If it is one, more or less complicated could be either a plus or a minus depending on specifics.
 * C) Their non-mathematical curios run the gamut, and I have my own problems with them on this (and even somewhat on mathematics--a) they have never fixed a curio dealing with electoral votes and b) a parenthetical on one of my curios about 17 that I requested removed more than once stays) and other things. But I have had other people's curios removed or corrected when I found fault mathematically, and they have many regular contributors who are bound to eventually catch most anything that is simply wrong (assuming they actually want certain things changed, which is probably not true with the electoral-vote thing).  I don't know that the Pennsylvania-turnpike curio would be difficult to check.  {If it's deliberately being put up falsely, it's probably because I am refusing to vote this year on account of a Nebraska war criminal thinking 6 years break from politics was good enough.}
 * Anyway, not important to me now.173.15.152.77 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your correct assessment in the further edit you have since made highlights, in my opinion, why the text of the article needs to be carefully expanded; and what you deleted could be one of a list in prose of things that are only illusorily mathematical coincidences. I don't agree with you simply removing something like this, I should say.  You could have done a talk-page note on this in under 3 minutes, and you know it.173.15.152.77 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Incivility
You said:
 * Much as I hate to agree with StillStanding, since he's wrong so often, that does seem an accurate paraphrase.

Now, I happen to think you're mistaken about any number of things, but I don't hate to agree with you on those occasions when you are correct because my disagreement is not personal. In contrast, your statement above suggests some sort of grudge against me. Was that your intention? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong so often that, when my first reaction is to agree with you, my second reaction is to reconsider. No grudge.  I meant to imply that agreeing with you is wrong so often, that I need to clearly present the impression that my agreement is on this issue alone.  If you can suggest better wording to convey that, I'm willing to modify it there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to go with that non-apology. When you finally launch that RFC/U, I really hope you don't try to pass yourself off as a neutral party. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on the phrasing of the RFC/U, I might be a cosigner. I don't claim to be neutral in regard you any more, because of my observations of your actions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me the RFC/U. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be notified when it appears. Depending on the phrasing, I'll probably either cosign or oppose.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with StillStanding on this one. Rubin, this is poor behavior for any editor, much less an admin. The first part of your comment was completely inappropriate.  Please try to maintain a higher level of civility and professionalism, and keep your snarky comments to yourself. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's an RFC/U, there should be a page somewhere in a user's talk space, just like I have a page for the WikiProject Conservatism RFC that's being worked on. So either there's no RFC/U at all, or it's being worked on off-wiki. Which is it? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not actively working on the RfC/U, although I am tracking a few diffs. I'm not sure I have the same complaints/concerns as the other parties who have suggested that "something be done" about you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, either, which is why I'm asking. Is there a place where you're "tracking a few diffs"? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Offline. I may put online the diffs relating to your acting contratry to a clear consensus, while stating the consensus is in your favor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Word Baptist Church. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't refer to your fellow editors as liars as you did here. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This accusation is outrageous. This editor did not call any editors "liars." He specifically referred to certain statements as false. I'm disappointed Viriditas that you are mispresenting another editor's words. I hope that this is an oversight, because this is a serious violation of our policies. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur's incivility was demonstraetd when he described "the lies in that statement" of User:Insomesia, who then personally objected to being called a liar and said that making a mistake is not a lie. Arthur than compounded his initial incivlity with more incivility, this time referring to the user as irrational and lacking basic English. It is quite possible that Arthur is simply misinformed about our civility policy, but as an admin who has been here for some time, I think that is unlikely.  The only "serious violations" here appear to be Arthur's, and other threads noting his rude behavior can be found directly above this one.  Would you like to take this to ANI as a favor for me?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Lionel, but no. That's a pretty weak defense. Rubin did not say the statement was false, he said it was a "lie". And stating that someone has told a lie is equivalent to calling them a liar. You know that. Arthur Rubin clearly has a lot to learn about good manners and civility. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lie is not merely false, it's intentional. As such, calling someone's statement a lie is directly against WP:AGF, not to mention WP:CIVIL. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have said it was a lie.   I still don't see how anyone could have seen evidence for it in what actually happened, but that could be my failing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Don't you think this might be a good time to redact what you admit was uncivil? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent years
From WP:RY:

"Births

Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question.

Deaths

The same criteria apply to deaths as to births."

Cresix (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment at Talk: 2012. Cresix (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Viriditas has the IRC logs of this "channel" that namedrops you.
If you go over to his talk page, you can see that he confirms receiving the email from SkepticAnonymous who implicates you in this channel whatever it is. You should kindly request this dubious IRC log. ViriiK (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I should. There's still a trace of my IP somewhere on Wikipedia, although I don't remember where.  I edited logged out, and there were enough replies before I noticed it that I decided to leave it alone.  Any admin can find my IP because I've revdel'd some of my (and other editors') not logged in edits.  But you're probably right.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well now that the cat is out of the bag (is that the right expression?), at least Viriditas does confirm on the AN that he has the logs. I think I'm done now.  Naturally I think the logs is bullshit and that there is no IRC channel.  If there was, it certainly isn't on freenode or any popular IRC network. ViriiK (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

hi
Fair points. I can't edit the TPM page. Want to help me source more adequately? josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidmatter7 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your ongoing intervention
As your most recent error shows, you're getting sloppy and biased. I'm going to recommend that you disengage. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore your last addition here, but it wasn't minor for you to self-revert the repetition of your error. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, in part. Belchfire could (and probably should) have noted that your misinterpretation of previous consensus (as reflected by your prior posts) is so incorrect as to indicate a lack of understanding of English, but he shouldn't have restored your snipe attempt.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. You hastily review a link and come to the wrong conclusion. When this is pointed out, you don't acknowledge your error and apologize. Instead, you insult me some more.

This is so typical, and if you ever do file an RFC/U on me, actions like this will help it boomerang all over you. I look forward to it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

TNN and TP
Hello, the article, that I corrected, had totally positive (vs. totally non-negative), which have strictly positive eigenvalues of multiplicity 1. Also Fekete criterion allows one to check only NxM determinants to guarantee TP for an N by M matrix. I am not sure what is the best reference for it, and if it is appropriate for ancyclopedia... Daviddaved 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaved (talk • contribs)

You made real analysis look like finger painting
Arthur, I found myself reading what I consider to be the 4-chan of economists, and I stumbled across a thread where a respondent mentions you. I thought this bit of the response was somewhat funny: ''I am sure he got an A+ in real analysis (Caltech gave them) if he even bothered to take it. Mathematical logic, his specialty, at Caltech made real analysis look like finger-painting.'' Thread. Cheers,  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 08:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Outdenting
I wasn't quite clear on your edit here regarding outdenting. My impression was that there were too many colons and the view of the discussion could become too narrow on a monitor per WP:TALK and WP:INDENT. I read somewhere a long time ago on WP that after five colons you should start again. Did the outdenting not meet those guidelines? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Outdenting is tricky on sub-discussions. My feeling is, that if outdenting is required in a discussion with bullet ponts, you should reindent at least :::.  But it was only 8 deep, which I don't consider too deep.  If it reaches a point where you have to decide whether the discussion is to be at-all readable on narrow monitors, or decipherable on normal or wide monitors, you have to go with the wide.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

not sure what to do next
This edit contains a threat to remove content. Should I take this to ANI? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me from the edit summary that it is a threat. He may simply be suggesting that removing the paragraph is an alternative solution which they should consider. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see another meaning now, it may be an offer to agree with the removal of all of the pastor's statement, if the current pastor's statement which has been taken out of context is unacceptable. That is perhaps a Hobson's choice, but not a threat.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the mess I made. :-) I was about to, but had a distraction. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Satan! Oops.
Hehe I think Old Nick played a trick on you there. Your IP demon is momentarily expelled. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Artur Rubin is the Devil himself. He thinks praying to the Almighty is "absurb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he is not the devil. But perhaps he works for demons. He thinks praying to the Almighty Father YEHOVAH God through His Son YESHUWA is absurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Praying to the Almighty in a Wikipedia article is absurd. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no one that makes Wicker Baskets that is a follower of YESHUWA and gets to the Father YEHOVAH God through His Son? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wicker Baskets? Relevance?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well aren't these WIKI articles woven like wicker baskets? 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you would be untruthful by saying such a thing because they are woven. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You seem to have no idea what Wikipedia is.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No you do not know. Wiki is short for Wicker. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * [citation needed] See wiki for the true definition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is short for Wicker. Look at the way the articles are built. They are spun like a wicker basket but not with just one person but with a few people waring over what peice is woven in. If you are a Christian you should not fight the edition of praying to the ALMIGHTY FATHER YEHOVAH GOD through His Son YESHUWA HAMASHIACH. If you are not a Christian then you will be delt with by the Creator for calling pray absurb. I am optimistic that you will repent. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I take that back. I guess I have been somewhat mystic. I hope you repent. I am not OPTIMISTIC. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You Freemasons in the airforce need to repent. Freemasonry is demonism. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not Christian, a Freemason, nor in the airforce. And you seem to have missed studying some of your biblical passages.  "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The apostles said to the Pharasees. "We must serve God rather then men". 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you serving God by adding things which are not even a possible interpretation of the original words of the bible, as if they were? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not explained what you are complaining about. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to speak with me by direct video cumunications. I will see you and you will see me. We can have a conversation and hash this out. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of your edits to (the article) Pharmakeia have no published source, and are not consistent with the actual wording of the Bible, which you try to attribute them to. It's possible that something in the Bible, perhaps Shatnez, relates to GMOs, but you need a source other than your own imagination.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Breath lets me know these things and you can get it by asking YESHUWA. Just ask him. The gift is priceless. YEHOVAH God will send you the gift. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur. You surprise me. You let me know something I did not know. Thank you very much. Actually GMO of cource is both Shatmiz and Pharmakeia. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur. Polyester Cotten blends are Shatnez and Chemistry. Chemistry is witchcraft. Are you aware that Polyester causes lukemia due the horrid static electrical fields it generates on the body? 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware that that statement (Polyester causes lukemia) has no basis in fact, nor is it credited as factual even in the alternative medicine community. Polyester may irritate flesh, as can cotton or wool.  (reply to statement below) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Another Shatnez is how farmers in Ohio feed sheep the milk of goats. They get a higher price from the corporations for this wool. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that may be, although I can find no source for the information. But the corporations have nothing to do with it.  It would have to have an apparent advantage to the farmer; either goat's milk is cheaper than sheep's milk, there is more wool or it is produced faster, or the wool is of higher quality.  (I'm aware of your statement below.  I can neither confirm or deny).  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

GMO cotten is Shatnez also. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sheep wool that is fed goats milk is cource on the skin and pricks you and irritates your flesh. Polyester cotten blends irritate the flesh also. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Arthur. It was one farm boy who told me about the Goat milk fed to sheep. It is Shatmez. I don't know how much of any money they get from corporations to do this. But Shatmez is ending because nobody wants that irritating wool. 2602:306:C518:62C0:C43A:2508:7891:8FA1 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are Jewish I believe Artur. Are you? 2602:306:C518:62C0:C43A:2508:7891:8FA1 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm Jewish. Goat milk and lambs, though, probably doesn't even qualify is Shatmez, but, if it's not presently in the Talmud, it would probably have to be deferred to Elijah.  In any case, it seems unlikely to me, both that it's a common practise, and that it significantly affects the wool.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The wool becomes like cource fibers that prick the skin. You said; "Goat milk and lambs ...... is Shatmez". Why is it that you believe talking to the God with His name is wicked? It is written in Psalms that YEHOVAH wants people to know His Name. YESHUWA is the Son and the HAMASHEA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:FDD8:5BE:8377:D794 (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is wrong feeding Goats milk to lambs. The wool is cource and Shatmez and is like needles in the skin. 2602:306:C518:62C0:FDD8:5BE:8377:D794 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * From Revelations 22: "18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.". So a true Christian would take care not to change the meaning of the Bible with spurious interpretations. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would ascribe another form of religion entirely to that poster - but would likely get yelled at by someone for inventing "Trollism" as a religion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm leaning toward your view, Collect. Unless this is a practical joke via a Poe. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

1913
If you acknowledge that the page is biased then why did you revert all the changes that I made? The additions that I put in I believe ARE important - Irish home rule bill was an important step in the conflict, the Chelsea flower show is the most prestigious in the world, the aquitania was one of the 'grand trio' of Cunard ocean liners and served in the wars, stainless steel was an important invention as was the first oil-fired battleship.

You can disagree with some of the additions, but to revert my attempts to make the page fairer and more objective does not strike me as balanced and impartial.Noodleki (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit
Alanf777 made a bold edit at Energy Catalyzer and you restored it without discussing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's accurate; it's not misleading, while omitting it might be misleading. I don't see the problem.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of sourced content - September 2012
Please do not remove sourced content from articles as you did here in the article Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. You removed a direct quote that was properly cited from the source.

Your edit summary: "no evidence it DOES meet the description; needs a specific (SPLC) source"

The source immediately following the text you removed:

The quote from the source that you removed: "Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling."

You made a similar edit here

Your edit summary: "source doesn't say "pointed""

You changed: "in email, did not respond to the SPLC accusations but did pose "pointed questions" to "in email, did not directly respond to the SPLC accusations but instead asked"

But in fact, the source does say pointed as discussed on the article's talk page here: Talk:Parents_Action_League

From Louwagie (081212):

This a good-faith effort to stop what I believe is pattern of disruptive editing. You have contributed nothing to expanding these articles, but have repeatedly removed content that you do not agree with, against consensus. I have also noticed this disruptive behavior on other articles. Please stop this disruptive behavior or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. – MrX 15:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are clearly edit-warring to put in pejorative information about extreme right-wing groups. If you will point out pejorative information about extreme left-wing groups, sourced only to generalities or extreme right-wing groups, I'll do the same there.
 * In PAL, the source did not say "pointed", although another one added by StillStanding, did.
 * In AfTaH, the source gives the general reason such organizations are listed, and gave specific (but different) reasons for that particular organization (although there's a little synthesis, there, as well. The article doesn't say that the specific actions of the organization were the reason for listing).  The first general clause is supported by the specific reasons, but the second one is not.  It still may be synthesis, but I'd be willing to allow the first clause to remain.  The second is still without a source.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Arthur, I stand by the facts I've already laid out above. I reject your assertion that I'm edit warring by inserting 'pejorative' information that is sourced from authoritative, third-parties and notable for its coverage in other third-parties sources. I'm not the least bit interested in the left vs. right aspects, as that is extraneous to my purpose on Wikipedia, and not of interest to me.
 * Again, if you persist with these ill conceived drive-by-style deletions against consensus, I will take appropriate steps to have the disruptive editing stopped. Best wishes – MrX 16:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please strike out edit-warring. I don't think that's what you're doing, and I'll take your word that left-wing v. right-wing is irrelevant to you.  However, you are adding information not literally sourced from the sources provided.  Sometimes synthesized, sometimes (as in AfTaH) only from using the following information:
 * SPLC ceclares the group as an anti-gay hate group.
 * SPLC's criteria for declaring a group "anti-gay hate group" are generally "XXXX and YYYY".
 * (for AfTaH), SPLC declares that the group does A, B, and C.
 * Using that to source
 * SPLC declares the group is an "anti-gay hate group" because "XXXX and YYYY"
 * is synthesis. It's unreasonable synthesis unless A, B, and C are examples of XXXX and YYYY.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your synth argument, although the policy does say "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."


 * If a general statement is made about a set of organizations, followed by more specific (non-contradictory) statements about one of the organizations, then I think a reasonable inference can be made that both the general and the specific statements apply. Admittedly, it's not 100% clear in this case, but ultimately is a judgement call on the part of us editors, via consensus.


 * As far as I can tell, consensus leans toward using the general SPLC language in the articles about these 18 organizations. If this is going to continue to be a contentious issue, perhaps it should be settled in an RfC for all 18 groups (if possible), so that these articles can become more stable. Best – MrX 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here and add that Rubin is wrong. The source I added to PAL turns out to have been redundant and unnecessary, so I removed it. I mistakenly assumed that Rubin was correct, which is why I added what I thought was a new source. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

AC and Group Structure
Hi!

I have asked a couple of people that have been active in ML/Set Theory to look at a proposal for a new short article on the equivalence of AC and the existence of a group structure.

You seem to be an authority as well. I'd be very happy if you could have a look at my talk page and say what you think about it.

Best Regards, Johan Nystrom YohanN7 (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd move it to a user subpage, rather than a user talk page, so I would have somewhere to comment. The proof looks good, but doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia, even if published.  Perhaps WikiBooks or Wikiversity would like it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. I'll try to figure out what a user subpage is (and how to make one). I have a copy in my sandbox. It's perfectly ok if you comment on the talk page, including inside the text. The proof (group->AC using Hartog) is probably from the second reference. I don't know for sure. The original equivalence (AC<->group) might originally have been Erdös. AC->group (which doesn't work for finite sets) seems very mundane. I made this version up (but I don't like it myself;) given the symmentric difference product on the power set. YohanN7 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You could see if it's in Consequences of the Axiom of Choice (Howard & Rubin) or Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice (first or second edition) (Rubin & Rubin). Note that the "Rubin"s in question are my relatives.  Hmmm.  It doesn't seem to be in Consequences, but there are online updates.  "Symmetric difference" on subsets of S can be replaced by the free group of exponent 2 over S (it being the same), and that has the same cardinality as S (if S is infinite, and given the axiom of choice) by standard universal algebra or Löwenheim–Skolem theorem methods.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Policy Error for Yendor
Hello sir, in your recent comment on the SPLC:Talk you mention that I am wrong as to Policy. I have little doubt that you are correct but could you tell me which policy I am incorrect about? I began that discussion stating that something in the lead must be supported by the body and I removed the FBI reference and after a short reversion war I could no longer make any changes. I made it clear that 2 sentences out of 41 paragraphs did not qualify as Lead material as cited in the Manual of Style/Lead. Was this the policy that I was wrong about? I then tried a different tack on them. Yendor (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the lead and the body should separately satisfy WP:NPOV; any difference in coverage should be dealt with in one part or the other. In this specific instance, I quite agree that the FBI shouldn't be in the lead, per WP:UNDUE, and probably should have less coverage in the body.  Anything in the lead which is not in the body needs to be well-sourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree entirely about the NPOV issue. Not a single iota of criticism, yet.  Thank you for your guidance.  Yendor (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

New ANI requests server be told the clock has restarted on the Mich Ext link spammer
FYI, I have started a new ANI on a matter in which you have previously expressed interest, the Michigan global warming external link spammer. (If my link fails to pop up the specific subsection please check the table of contents on the NB.)

Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: A mighty thanks - yet again - for starting the compiling project in the first place. On Aug 23, the library was blocked for a year, and the rangeblock I think is their home was restarted and extended for 3 months. I took time to figure out your footnotes today and cleaned up a lot of the nonconforming notes I added to August. If there's anyway you'd like me to tweak (or restrain) my work on the IP list page please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I asked James to tell the server that sock has restarted the block clocks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

emended comment
On the extant RfC/U, I emended my comments in line with your objection. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC about 10101 number properties
Hallo there, thanks for your interest about mathematical subjects. This message is to kindly invite you to contribute to the comments about your recents edits.

By the way I have the slight impression that you are wikihounding me: as well this is not the first time that you revert my "Good Faith" edits without attempting to start a discussion on the talk page. I would like you to know that you are starting to make me feel uncomfortable: stating that my edits "seems trivial" is a bit offensive IMHO. Infact I guess that I am done with wikiedits for today. I hope I am wrong about it and that this was unintentional. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

AC and Group Structure 2
Hi!

I moved the draft here User:YohanN7/Group Structure and the Axiom of Choice. Have a look!

Is it appropriate if I copy our earlier discussion (on this page) about this to the talk page of the new page?

Best regards, Johan YohanN7 (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are edit warring at Illinois Family Institute


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) (thank you for admitting it)

I would prefer not to report this to AN/EW for this tendentious deletion of sourced content which you deleted against the trend of consensus. If you revert your edits, I will not report you this time. – MrX 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still not sourced, in spite of all your references. (It's possible that the 2nd of the 3 references contains a source; all I know is that it's not in the quote.)  No argument has been presented on the talk page that it's sourced, except for the RfC assertion.
 * Furthermore, a different reason is given in the body. If you want to echo the body reason in the lead, I'd have no objection other than undue weight.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not engage in the the same recrudescent arguments. Should I take your response to indicate that you do not intend to self-revert? – MrX 15:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've reverted, but it's not in any of the sources presented in the lead or the body. So tagging.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Partially reverting and tag bombing are a different flavor of this pattern of tendentious editing. Please reconsider. – MrX 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I will not reconsider. That statement is not in any of the sources yet presented as referring to ILI in SPLC's voice.  The last reference may have it in ADL's voice, rather than SPLC's.  WP:CONSENSUS (such as, potentially, in the RfC) does not override WP:VERIFY.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But if the consensus is that the material is sufficiently verifiable/verified, the policies aren't in conflict: you just disagree with the consensus. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I disagree that there is a consensus. If a consensus develops which violates policy, I'll have to think about whether I want to continue with Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You certainly have the perogative to disagree that there is a consensus. But remember: whether or not something violates policy is, itself, a topic subject to consensus decision-making (except in corner cases like office acctions, etc.) If you find yourself participating in a discussion where you end up a non-participant in a consensus you feel violates policy, there are plenty of recourses available to you short of taking your ball and going home. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. – MrX 17:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – MrX 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Arthur. No admin has yet responded to the open WP:AN3 report about your actions. But I did take a look at the first part of the report, the one about Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. I hope you'll respond about the first edit I noticed there: . Your edit summary was "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization." The linked source is online, and it does include the word 'name-calling.' Can you explain why our article quoting the actual words from splcenter.org should be described as 'synthesis'?  I know that there has been a running controversy as to the weight we should assign to the conclusions drawn by Southern Poverty Law Center about what they call hate groups, but I'm not seeing the same problem you are here. Since the statement is attributed to SPLC here in this sentence, we are not even using Wikipedia's voice. In this one case, it looks like you are removing well-sourced material from the article for reasons not founded in policy. I would welcome any clarification. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the only reference to "name-calling" in the referenced article is it its lead: Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Since it says "generally", we can't say that it applies to a specific organization without a specific note.  I mentioned that on most of the article talk pages to which that argument was applied, although I seem to have missed AfTaH.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try to reconstruct my reasoning for each of the edits, if you think it will do any good. It will take time away from other edits and probably from real work which I need to get done this week, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why not support a change in the lead to say that Americans for Truth about Homosexuality is one of the 18 groups to which SPLC thinks this description applies? (including the 'name-calling'). EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even that would be our interpretation. What could be said is that SPLC listed AfTaH an anti-gay hate group, and the general reasons for such listing are ....  Since it's the same source, it may not be synthesis.  It's getting to be undue weight, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are way out ahead of Wikipedia policy. If you are not willing to choose a venue to argue for your more expansive interpretation and persuade other editors to support you, some action might be needed on the edit-warring report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the SPLC article can been seen to support your suggested wording, without "generally". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The report at WP:AN3 is full of complaints from people who can't follow your reasoning. You are reverting at a bunch of places for reasons that make sense to you, but apparently few others. Why not pick one particular case and then see if you can argue for it at a noticeboard and persuade the others? You seem to be very well-intentioned but your reverts appear to be causing trouble and confusion. Make a proposal for where this can be resolved and you can find support. If you can't find support, you should cease making SPLC-related reverts.  If you don't want to go into this now, why not just voluntarily agree to take a break from SPLC-related editing for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please respond to the point, which is that the word "generally" means that the material may or may not apply to any one of the specific instances. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is part/most of the definition for "generally", from www.m-w.com:
 * a : in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture
 * b : as a rule : usually
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur...walk away from these politically charged areas for now...it might make Wikipedia a more enjoyable place. Dealing with POV pushers is a miserable way to spend your time on this website.MONGO 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

IP complaint?
Arthur, per your AFD comment at List of AT&T U-verse channels, it would be instructive to me to know which of my comments you perceived as a complaint, as I don't perceive myself as a complainer. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article discretionary sanctions: 2012 US political campaign topics
At General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log you can see that articles such as Mitt Romney dog incident would be included in those that are subject to general sanctions. Your undiscussed content reversion here brings you into the group of notified editors. After a final notice comes a topic ban. Thanks for your time. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was discussed; just not by me. I would have no objection if all the apparently POV editors, of whatever bias, were restricted from the article.  I would object if only those of the pro-Romney POV were restricted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The implication is that you need to participate in the discussion instead of simply reverting. And, yes, these restrictions apply to everyone equally. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any discussion. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deja vu again? Collect (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Arthur, could you please explain what's preventing you from opening a discussion? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin and have no interest in posting on pages related to sanctions primarily aimed at admin use. Is that your question? Perhaps you could post your precise question a tad more clearly, as my response to Arthur was not one I considered likely to elicit any  response on your end. Collect (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)   Appending:  SS247's initial comment was indented as a reply to my post, and made no mention of "Arthur" in it -- his editing of his own post serves no purpose other than to make my reply seem a tad odd.  I assure everyone, it was a reply to what was clearly SS247's reply to me.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect, it's not always about you.

It's true that I went back and added "Arthur" to make it clear that I was addressing him, but it ought to have been clear in the first place to anyone who read carefully. I could not have responded to your comment because it's a non sequitur and I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. Instead, Arthur explained that there was no discussion, so I pointed out that nothing was stopping him from creating a discussion. Seems obvious to me that these two sentences dovetail.

The suggestion that I was trying to trick you into making an odd reply violates WP:AGF. Nobody is trying to trick you into making yourself look silly. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding24/7...you're obviously an antagonist of Arthur's...so about the only purpose your presence on this page seems to serve is to antagonize.MONGO 13:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a complicated relationship, but it turns out that my presence here serves legitimate functions, such as helping him avoid edit wars. Antagonizing him is not my purpose, and if it's an unintentional side-effect then I sincerely apologize. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, he must support your version or he's edit warring. You're an antagonist here, with limited experience on this website and no authority whatsoever to be lecturing Arthur regarding policies and editing.MONGO 11:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, despite his extensive experience, he is often wrong about policy, especially when it comes to reliable sources. I'm not here to lecture and I don't demand his support. I do, however, insist that being right is more important than being experienced. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we should be focused on sources and article text. Anyone who "insists" might do well to revisit Consensus.  In addition, obsessive pettifogging after an ANI closure also calls to mind the principles that Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a battleground and that Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) about winning.  My question is, how is this continued pecking on a user's talk page improving the various articles that were (supposedly) the real issue in this discussion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. Fortunately, I have a good answer. Take a look at James Dobson, where Arthur was refusing to accept a high quality academic source that was stating something not particularly controversial. Arthur spontaneously changed his behavior to be entirely reasonable.

This is what I actually want: not sanctions, warnings or blocks. I want him to get along with me and the other editors without tediously second- and third-guessing every reliable source proposed. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Do you? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are waging a campaign on behalf of unnamed other editors outside of the DR process huh? I assume you are operating under the policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground, unless the name of that battleground is  "Arthur Rubin behavior modification"?   How about just going back to editing articles, and using the DR process?  I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  You want him to get along, and that means abiding by consensus.  The community's consensus has created dispute resolution options.... the very things you have rejected out of hand.  I'd like to see you get along with other editors by using the DR process they have seen fit to create for these issues, and get back to articles and sources.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, where'd you get that wild accusation from?
 * I'm working with Arthur to try to come to some mutually acceptable compromise that lets us make better articles. I believe that's the whole point of Wikipedia; for us to work together to build something. All I see coming from you is a WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk)
 * In response to StillStanding, who asked, "Wow, where'd you get that wild accusation from?" a partial answer would be paragraph #2 in this diff. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, you didn't get it from there. You're reading things into passages where they're not to be found. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 19:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still dubious per deadhorse and snowball, and most important of all since we're not at an article's talk page discussing an edit. I'm still watching Arthur's page, but I'm dropping the stick. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

JTBX's Personal Attacks and Off-Topic Commentary
On the talk page of Covert United States foreign regime change actions, another editor and I were debating if a blockquote from Noam Chomsky would be an appropriate addition to the section on Nicaragua. I felt that it would add little to the page since everything Chomsky said was covered already, and Chomsky is not an expert on the political history of Nicaragua. Out of the blue, JTBX appeared. JTBX soon engaged in a rambling monologue in which he asserted that everything Chomsky says is the undisputed truth, and only the ignorant deny his wisdom: His rant spanned several countries and wars, and included personal attacks. Beyond likening me to a Holocaust denier for questioning Chomsky, he suggested that "you are morally reprehensible". He reported me to an admin around the same time over an unrelated issue. Although the admin sided with me, he continued to make accusations of bad faith and (bizarrely) accused me of using I'mStillStanding as a sockpuppet. Back on CUSFRCA, he threatened me and accused me of editing Conservapedia. I tried to hat his comments as WP:SOAPBOX, but he reverted me twice. As you are an admin, I would appreciate it if you looked into the matter. If you agree that his comments were inappropriate and off-topic, I'd ask that you hide them again, and perhaps remind him about WP:CIVILITY. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Chomsky is not a fringe source, because he is backed by declassified documents and reliable journals etc. He simply quotes the mainstream press and takes it to account. Real events hardly have a POV, while it is useful to include them in the article, you cannot have a balanced POV of Nazis....[or] the US....Theres nothing "marxist" (American propaganda at its finest) about it, just pure fact.....Get over it and stop worshipping your beloved state. Its not POV. Fact man."

Nonsense. I saw the discussion and weighed in, as I am perfectly entitled to. My counterpoint on the "Marxist" was because Times threw it out that I had a Marxist viewpoint which is laughable, if marxist means the facts. I also gave some opinions on how the quote could be fitted in and so on, but you simply placed a soapbox template onto me. The fact is you have continually removed sources from pages, verified documents etc, that have a critical view of US policy. Numerous users such as User:Zrdragon12 and here as well as here where you removed criticism of US economic policies on Nicaragua under Reagan, here, here where you removed my sourced details and called it "POV" pushing I can go on.

Simpyl put, I dont have time and energy to waste with Times on this. I would never tolerate removal of content that verifies Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, Nazi crimes etc so neither would I tolerate his unwarranted removal of all this content of US domination of Latin America and other policies. I cannot work with someone who wishes to blank and remove sourced content and shoves Wikipedia Policies-which are not even policies but essays he selects- on others that make no sense at all. If people like him can get away with this and try to corner and block others with Admin support by making themselves the victim, then Wikipedia has failed. And if you want my opinion then yes I think he has a long term agenda because no one else would remove content wholesale this way, and the ones that are critical of US policy. --JTBX (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty
Arthur, thanks for commenting on the Zero Dark Thirty article. Seeing the number of barnstars you have, you seem like a good wiki citizen. Could you take a look at the talk thread between Xenophrenic and me? I'm trying to assume good faith, but it feels like he's deflecting me rather than engaging the factual issues, and scrolling further up I'm seeing the pattern with other users as well.

The main problem is that the article has turned into a coat rack for discussing the bin Ladin disclosures controversy as opposed to the subject of the article, the film itself. The justification for a lengthy diversion into debunking the Dishonorable Disclosures video seems unnecessary when you can get the same content from the video's wiki page itself (and the Bergen article doesn't mention issues related to Zero Dark Thirty at all).

The other question is, if we do decide include all that text, what tone to give it. I'm first in line to support rating the video and related critiques "mostly false"-- the reliable sources do so as well. But the language in the article goes much further than its citations are willing to go. A couple assertions have been supported, and Polifact and others seem to draw on this to explain their use of "mostly". The description of OPSEC used by every source that mentions it refers to them one way, and the article refers to it in a different (and far more sensational and denigrating) way. If we have to include all this, I'd like to see it at least match the factual content and tone of the source articles.

He's also insisting that I'm misquoting him and insulting him personally and is threatening to bring the Admins in. I feel like I've been nothing but civil, and I know how forum conversations can blow up unintentionally, but it really feels to me like a tactic to avoid the substance of my position. I let him revert me without further edits on my part while we work this through, but now I'm looking through the talk page and seeing other people who went through the same thing and appear to have simply given up. On the other hand, StillStanding popped in and appears to agree that I've been off base.

So what I'd appreciate if you have time is: A) could you look through the sources and let me know if I'm crazy here (I mostly relied on the sources already in the article, but added this link that was reverted]. And B) glance at our conversation and let me know if you think I've crossed any lines at any point.

I guess the next step is a noticeboard, but I'd like to avoid escalating and your reputation and the fact that you're already on the talk page suggest that I get a reality check before pushing The Big Red Button. Wellspring (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK no response maybe I am the crazy one. Wellspring (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be reasonable, but many of the participants at Zero Dark Thirty, and other articles loosely involved with the Presidential campaign or SPLC, are not, and I have been involved with many of them. Odds are that, if StillStanding says something, he's probably wrong, but my experience with Xenophobic has generally been good.  I'm having personal problems, and I've chosen not to get involved with this article.
 * There are too many of StillStanding's POV edits to ignore, and WP:COATRACK is an essay, rather than a policy or guideline. I agree that criticism of Dishonorable Disclosures is out of line, but Xeno has a point that comments about questionable disclosures to the filmmakers belongs somewhere, and this is the best article for it so far.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx for the response. It seemed like Xeno was taking mock offense to avoid answering my questions about what his sources actually say. I have a feeling that after the election we'll see some of the fury die down and we can get these articles into shape. Best wishes on overcoming the RL stuff and thanks for the wise words. Wellspring (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Vague relevance of graphs in tax articles
Arthur, since you're pretty active on tax articles, I've been noticing a pattern by User:Cupco of inserting graphs and content that have vague relevance to the topic. You mentioned this on the Income tax article, but I've been seeing it in many others that follow a similar pattern - inserting U.S. specific graphs with little context or relevance to the content mater. I hope that Cupco is an excited editor just trying to add to the articles and not some form of POV pushing, but they often provide no benefit to the content and add bias. I've mentioned this to Cupco on the talks, but it doesn't appear that I'm having any impact on making the information more relevant. Perhaps you could get more involved in the discussion and weigh in. Thanks Morphh   (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied to this at Talk:Income tax, Talk:Tax incidence, Talk:Laffer curve, and Talk:Income inequality in the United States discussing particular graphs' relation to particular articles. &mdash; Cup co  01:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cupco was blocked indef for being a Sockpuppet, so disregard, unless you feel some of those images should be restored. Guess we should keep an eye out for his pattern as he has a history of showing back up under a different account according to the SPI.  Thanks  Morphh   (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record...
Would you care to explain why you are actively campaigning to get me blocked or banned? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I think that your activities on Wikipedia do more harm than good, both in your actual article edits, your attempt to justify them, your deliberate misinterpretation of consensus, and your severe misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At first, I thought you could learn to follow the policies, but now I believe that, since you are misinterpreting the polices, and refuse to accept that fact, that you are essentially incorrigible. You've learned to avoid pushing things enough to be blocked, although there is at least one article ban that you are ...


 * You messed up your edit. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin: Are you actively working to have yourself blocked as well? It seems to me that you're guilty of the many of the same things you're accusing StillStanding of.  Your activities on Wikipedia certainly do more harm than good...for instance, how many editors have left Wikipedia due to your incessant bullying?  You refuse to work with editors to improve their work, but instead simply delete anything you don't like, with no regard for the time and work that someone else put into writing up a contribution.  And if they complain, you go look for something else they've written so you can delete that too.  You complain of vandalism, but you yourself were caught vandalizing my user page -- and instead of offering an apology, you tried to justify your actions with lies.  You're using Wikipedia rules and policies not to improve Wikipedia, but as a way to justify pushing people around.  For you to work to have StillStanding blocked or banned is hypocrisy of the highest order.  SimpsonDG (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit that some of the editors of whom it could be said that I assisted their removal from Wikipedia might have been redemable, but all had been edit-warring to include POV information, and most had had the guidelines adequately (at least to someone with a fair knowledge of English) explained to them. Perhaps I've been too harsh from time to time.
 * However, if you look at the my first interactions with StillStanding (under his previous ID; I don't think I interacted with him under the IP address), you'll see I was patiently explaining what he was doing in violation of the guidelines, and he appeared to pretend to understand and push the limits of my explanations, which usually went beyond the limits of the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Still was blocked for his "joke", and then you responded with this at the block notice. What were you thinking? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the subject of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines... Assume good faith. Robo37 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't about assuming good faith, but about common sense. The comment lacked all sense of tact. I'm not attacking Rubin, I'm trying to offer him some advice.IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the (apparent to me, anyway) consensus at ANI that Still should not have been blocked for his "joke", but for his disruptive edits. At worst, I was repeating an additional joke.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The block was endorsed because of the disruption. What resulted in the initial block itself was the joke; the diff was cited in the block as threatening violence. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

 * Short of a device to classify people by race, are not all technology projects ipso facto non-racist? What does "anti-racist" mean in this context? JRSpriggs (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding your reversion of an edit
Here you reverted this edit of mine for the reason that "there are many deficient numbers". What kind of properties must a number have to be listed there? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The general guideline is found at WP:NUMBER. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

David Keith
Arthur

I am David Keith and I see that you recently edited a page about me. I had not looked at the page for a long time, when last I did I suggested changes and got nowhere.

Wikipedia is amazing, I love using it but have no experience editing it. I gather you are not supposed to edit your own pages, so I have not. I would like to suggest some changes. Would you entertain suggestions?

Yours, David

David Keith Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS); and, Professor of Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University david_keith@harvard.edu www.keith.seas.harvard.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.72.241 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To avoid conflict of interest, it is recommended that you not edit the article on yourself. However, you are encouraged to make suggestions on its talk page, Talk:David Keith (scientist). JRSpriggs (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bravo
We may disagree from time to time, but this was so well stated, I couldn't not give you some props: "11.I wasn't going to vote in the ArbCom elections, but I may now do so to vote for JC, and against the "Party". I don't think JC has expressed himself well, but (this is about MF) MF has done more damage to Wikipedia by harassing new editors who could have been productive (in fact, they were productive, but MF found some (objectively questionable) rule violation and slammed them) than good by his mainspace edits." Well said. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yr complaint about my Wikipedia entry
I do not understand your objection to my entry. Worldwide, the SSRN (Social Science Research Network), where I publish my papers, is the No. 1 electronic resource for law and economics papers. Law reviews published in paper form no longer are the only legitimate way to get articles published. Except for a hotshot publication such as the Harvard Law Review, there is limited benefit to publishing in a paper law review. An article in paper form *might be read by one or two people who *might go a law library. By way of the SSRN, I can attract a dozen or a hundred readers, who do their research through the SSRN index and a click of a mouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS (an implimentation of the policy WP:VERIFY) and WP:SPS. You may be an expert, but both SSRN and Crossbow Corp. are self-publishing venues, so any use to be made of your work in those publications depends only on your expertise, and only if you are a published expert in the field.  Even so, WP:SELFCITE suggests that you should be careful about citing your own work.  In the field of set theory, I have to be careful about citing my parents' work, although there seems to be a general consensus that I may do so if appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)



Good points. I met your standards in the following ways:

1. SSRN is *not a self-publishing outfit. Take a look at its web site. You'll see that it's run by professors at major universities, and it's been around for 20 years. I have *no connection to SSRN. It's *their web site. *They decide what's published on their website. Of the 18 papers which I submitted to them, they rejected 2. So, the SSRN has publication criteria, and they are choosy, as is a paper law review.

2. Crossbow Corporation is *not for self-publishing. It's a commercial publisher in the country where I live and work.

3. There's no self-promotion. My email address is private. I don't have a website. I don't work for the public, so I don't want to drum up business.

4. I agree that caution is needed when citing one's own work. The articles were placed under the appropriate subject headings, not simply spread around. Some subjects had little or no supportive material, and were marked as such by Wikipedia editors, so the citations beefed up those subjects.

5. You can read some of the articles, and evaluate their merits. My expertise: lawyer for 25 years. Lots of research goes into what I write. And I *don't get paid for writing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment on JohnJay's talk page. FYI, I do not see Stephen Kruger (or John Jay) listed as an attorney with either the CSB or NYSB. --S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC) CORRECTION -- I did not enter the correct search parameter with the NYSB. Stephen Kruger, Brooklyn LS, is listed as of 1975 (37 years this month), practicing in Hong Kong (which accounts for his Hong Kong articles). My apologies to Mr. Kruger.--S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From the SSRN terms of service:
 * "Contributed content should be relevant to the subject scope of SSRN. Content may not be illegal, obscene, defamatory, threatening, infringing of intellectual property rights, invasive of privacy or otherwise injurious or objectionable. SSEP does not pre-screen or regularly review any contributed content, but SSEP has the right (though not the obligation) to remove, without notice, any content posted which we consider, for any reason, to violate these Terms or to be outside the subject scope of the Services. SSEP may terminate any account, with or without notice, for posting such content."
 * Looks like self-publishing to me.
 * I can't find out anything about Crossbow Publications, except that it's located in Victoria, Australia. I was wrong that it appears to be self-publishing; there is nothing available about it, and the paid ads on commercial indicies which contain it only have links to self-publishing firms.  I apologize for making that statement without evidence.  Your book still may not be a reliable source, but I don't know it's self-published.
 * I can see you don't directly gain from having links on Wikipedia to your abstracts; however, your reputation at SSRN may be enhanced, and having your name up may lead to business. It's not a direct financial COI, but it's still a COI.
 * I disagree that all your references are relevant. They're not scattered arbitrarily; when you link from an article to one of your papers, it (at least, usually) has something to say about the topic, but it may not be much, and what it has to say might fit better in another related article.
 * We are (mostly) not qualified to judge your papers; but, in the absence of other evidence we must rely on established reliable sources and experts to determine the value of your papers.
 * Sorry if I implied that your work isn't good; for inclusion in Wikipedia, you would need to be a recognized expert, and you have not presented evidence of this. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

+++

Here are my replies:

1. To show that I’m a good legal writer, without reference to SSRN, please consider that my book, Krueger on United States Passport Law, is in libraries, including the Harvard Law Library. It doesn’t buy rubbish. You can check the holdings of the HLS law library through their online catalogue. The book is 300+ pages of original work on the U.S. passport law and history.

2. You were uncertain whether my book has value. Without knowing you, how would I ever answer the question of what’s good in your eyes? One way for you to determine value is to look at book reviews. There might be some on the Web. Another way is for you to read it yourself. You can probably pick up a used copy online. If you do, you should buy the second edition, which is better than the first edition. I was not happy with the first edition.

3. More about good legal writing: I wrote the definitive article on the U.S. census. It was published in a paper law review. "The Decennial Census", 19 Western State Law Review 1 (1981). You can get it at a law library, or you can read an updated version on SSRN. Through original research going back to the Albany Plan of Union (1754) and the Constitutional Convention (1787), I show that the Constitution requires and authorizes an enumeration -- a headcount. A census (an inquiry about personal facts) is not authorized. The nosiness of the Census Bureau is unconstitutional.

4. My article on Massachusetts civil motor-vehicle infractions appeared originally in a paper law review: vol. 20 of the Western State Law Review (1992). It appears also on SSRN.

5. Crossbow Corporation is not in Australia. It’s a Chinese publishing house. (I live and work in Hong Kong.) It published the passport book. I didn’t pay them to do it. I collected royalties from sales.

6. There’s no self-promotion with mentioning the book. It was published in 1997 (1st edition). It was last updated in 2005 (2nd edition). It’s now out of print, so I have nothing to sell.

7. There’s no self-promotion with my articles, either. I’m a corporate lawyer. As I mentioned before, I don’t look for clients among the general public. I’m an employee. I collect a salary. That’s it. I do not have my own law firm. I’m not associated with any law firm. I don’t advertise in any way. There’s no professional benefit to me if someone finds out that I wrote this or that.

8. Also, most Web users are in the USA. I don’t benefit, here in Hong Kong, if anyone in the USA finds out that I wrote whatever.

9. There’s no enhancement of reputation on SSRN. They publish whatever they want to. It’s not my website. Also, as with any other publishing outfit, they have to select what to publish and not to publish. They can’t select articles on the basis of reputation, or they’d lose readers. Anyhow, as I mentioned, I had 2 articles bounced by them. I have no “reputation” which would cause publication of a (to them) sub-standard article.

10. Going back to proof of the quality of my writing: I write extensively. I write under both Kruger and Krueger. Depends what I’m writing. Also, I write fiction under a pseudonym. But if I don’t know your taste in fiction or in non-fiction, I can’t prove that I’m a good writer.

11. You wrote, “I disagree that all your references are relevant.” I thought that they are relevant. For example, the article about Massachusetts civil motor-vehicle infractions was listed under the Wikipedia subject “Massachusetts district court.” That’s because, when a motorist is charged with a civil motor-vehicle infraction, he gets a first hearing. If the motorist doesn’t like the result of the first hearing, he can appeal. If he does that, the appeal is heard by a *district-court judge.

11. If you have a particular citation in mind, let me know. I’ll explain how it fits in with the Wikipedia subject heading which I chose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI -- Stephen Krueger is listed with OCLC in the following: . There are no law related OCLC results for Stephen Kruger or Stephen Krüger. Also, I have commented further on JohnJay1745's talkpage. --S. Rich (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To Arthur and to SRich -- I see that my references were removed. Have I explained that what i did was not self promotion, and that my entries are relevant to the Wikipedia subsject matter? Or do u want to go through them one by one, and make a decision? Wholesale removal, *before looking into the merit of my entries, and *before getting my side of the story, is *unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * IMOH (the numbers do not correspond to those above):
 * I have revised and expanded on the Kruger on US Passport Law reference, and restored it to the passport law articles.
 * With this in mind, the Crossbow Publishers question is a non-issue.
 * I restored the original Western State Law Review reference (Vol. 19, No. 1) and provided links which give better access. (But I do not agree that it is an updated version of the original. The SSRN version did not acknowledge in any fashion that it was an update.)
 * There are two possibilities: JohnJay is in fact Kruger -- or he is not.
 * Either way, JohnJay needs to address the WP:COI issue, particularly if he is Kruger.
 * At that -- e.g., a Kruger acknowledgment -- point, WP:SELFCITE comes into play. It would be fine if some other editor was adding the SSRN items (as long as they met all other WP:RS criteria) to different articles. But the judgment of other WP editors is needed to make that determination.  IOW, it is not enough to say "I'm a good writer, I want to add my own material as references, external links, further reading, etc."
 * JohnJay needs to look at this WP editing effort as an editing effort. What has his/Kruger's editors done in the past with his material? They didn't originate it -- they took it, edited it, gave suggestions, support, criticisms, etc., and then returned it to him before the material was published.  JohnJay/Kruger needs to get out of the mind-set of an original author and be more of an editor. (Forgive me if I'm expressing this awkwardly!)
 * JohnJay needs to add time-stamp signatures to the talk page posts he submits. Although we all forget at times, the time-stamp with its four repeated keystokes ~ is simple to do and makes things easier for his fellow editors.--S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just came across this since I'm on this talk page. I'm an economist, and SSRN is generally well regarded in the field as a repository for working papers. Papers on the site aren't necessarily the best sources, some skepticism should be maintained, but there is an editorial process just to get things posted. I wouldn't exclude (nor automatically accept) anything on SSRN as a reliable source.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor block
What's the evidence that |this editor was attempting to use sock puppets? It looks like you blocked them, but there wasn't much explaining the block. You reverted the editor |here claiming that the edit was not constructive. I disagree. Of course the editor shouldn't be allowed to contribute if they are using socks (regardless of whether their edits are constructive), but it doesn't look like there is public evidence that they are. (Sorry if I come off as accusatory. It looks like you have a very good track record, but I've seen a few admins being overzealous recently so I wanted to double check).--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obviously the same editor as the multiple IPs listed in a subpage of User:Arthur Rubin; I can't find the specific page at the moment. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have to do better than that. There is a strong burden of proof needed to block an editor. You've also been reverting this IP's edits as "non-constructive" when that is highly debatable. Please give me a better reason for the block an reverts or I will request that this block be review.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment BKwilliam.  Setting aside what was said by the IP - and notice that the thread itself was started by yours truly - I agree with Arthur that the user is a block evading michigan-based external link spammer.  A partial coverage of the basis is here and here.  Both need updating and you will have to click SHOW to read the entire thing at the 2nd link.  During the roughly 2 month hiatus it appears they intermittently block evaded from a variety of NW Florida IPs with a stop at an Indiana IP on the way home a few days ago.   The topics and basically operating procedures were the same all along their travels. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, N&EG. The blocks still seem over zealous to me. It looks like anybody using a Michigan ip could be blocked if they posted on a few climate change. The editor in question did not appear to be link spamming. I'm not an admin, and I rarely stray into the admin issues, so I might be missing something here, but I still feel like this needs another look. Especially since a number of the "non-constructive" edits look legitimate to me.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You posted in just 10 min suggesting you have not studied all the info in this more-than-a-year battle to reform the usual superficial staccato link posting behavior of this IP. Since they post in my main area of interest - sometimes 45 links an hour! - it is well and truly disruptive.  But you might not have caught that with a cursory review so I can appreciate how you might wonder about the fate of ANY michigan IPs posting to climate pages.  Having been at the center of this for months I am quite comfy with my judgment that meaningful efforts at article improvement by those who abide by the core principle of trust (the thing all block evaders spit upon) will be distinguished from this particular sock. The edit in question did rank near the top - out of thousands - for depth of thought and care in writing.  But their contribs showed the same old strewing of external links with superficial treatment.   All we want or at least all I want is for that editor to actually work to expand on a couple of these sources in a couple of the articles in each session instead of loading in 50 links a time with a superficial sentence on a talk page or cluttering up See Also sections.  But nooOooOoOoOoo.... and he only takes the time to do THAT much because Arthur me and some others ride his butt.  The guy is one of the poster childs for the block of editors that want to ban IP editing altogether. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take your word for it. Sorry, Arthur. I've come across a few admins that seem to be acting out their duties a little too casually IMO, so I've been a little wary. Sorry to bug you both on this since it seems like a pain to deal with.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just correcting myself... the 45 per hr were edits some links some just trivial changes and overlinkking. Still superficial.  And the depth of thought on the Q in question was not the IPs work but the text he quoted.  So again still superficial. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To Arthur Rubin: Are you talking about User:Arthur Rubin/IP list ? JRSpriggs (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I haven't updated it in some time, my pointers to it are no longer active, and the article completion code (entering "User:Arthur Rubin/IP" in the search field) didn't work.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * JR, Arthur started collecting raw data for analysis in that link. But that is just the raw data.  As for what that raw data means a lot of info and related links have also been collected on my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closure
Whereas I fully agree with what you wrote here, I am not sure you, being a party of the dispute, have a right to close this discussion. I expect that your action will be contested, and I suggest you to self-revert and to address to some uninvolved admin instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't close it. An apparently uninvolved admin closed it as "no consensus", and I was commenting on the closure.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't notice that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

updated your IP raw data page
Hi Arthur; I think I have finished updating your IP List for you know who. They are socking from one of the ranges for which the server erroneously believes a short (1-2 month) block recently expired. The server also thinks another rangeblock is supposed to expire in a few days. (I phrase it that way because as you know block evasion automatically restarts the clock... but the servers need someone to tell them when it happens.) Please take a look and lets decide what the next step should be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminal and nonterminal symbols
About a month ago I made this edit to the article named above. Yesterday I looked at the article again and was taken aback to discover that it had been reverted (by you) shortly thereafter. I have always supposed that wholesale reversion is only appropriate for an edit which is basically incompetent or entirely wrong; thus, I find this alarming, and I am very interested in being corrected. Would you look at the diff (first link in this comment) and explain to me what error(s) I introduced? (Note, in reference to your edit summary, that my use of the term 'lexeme' (as in the article lexical analysis, not the article lexeme) was intended to reflect that in the block quote.)

False vacuum (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a few errors or changes which I found incomprehensible. If you had wikilinked "lexeme", I might have been able to determine what you were talking about, but introducing a technical concept from a related field is generally not a good idea.  "Lexeme" is a concept from lexical analysis, not in the related formal grammar, where this article resides.  If you want to note that a token (or even a lexeme) is not necessarily a single character, for this article, the place to do it would be as a footnote, noting that "character", "glyph", and "symbol" do not necessarily mean the same thing.  As this article is titled "terminal and nonterminal symbols", the term "symbol" should probably be used throughout, with an appropriate definition.  After looking more closely, I found the term "lexeme" was used outside your edit, so I should have replaced that usage by "symbol", as well.
 * I realize your good intentions, but use of professional jargon from a related field is not helpful, in my opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the lead at least, adding alternative names for things (other than the direct subject of the article) which are already clearly named is not a good idea because it makes the article harder to read. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your replies. It looks rather as though I may be using the wrong references; is it your opinion that Aho et al. is not an appropriate reference for this article?  It appears that I derived my (limited) understanding of this subject and its terminology in part from that book, especially pp. 42ff. (the block quote currently in the article is from p. 43).  As a complete autodidact in computer science, I am mostly unfamiliar with the sort of cultural background information that might make distinctions such as the one you are making above intuitive.  Should I remove 'lexical analysis', Aho et al., and anything to do with compilers, or should I just move it all into its own section, to which the use of the term 'lexeme' should be restricted?
 * Also, would you please explain what (else) you found to be "errors or incomprehensible"? Perhaps it was my attempt to distinguish levels of abstraction in the section that begins "Terminal symbols are literal [characters|lexemes] that can appear in the inputs to or outputs from the production rules of a formal grammar".  I replaced 'characters' with 'lexemes' because I knew the former was wrong (and was unaware that 'lexeme' is not a generally accepted term for the concept), but I also wanted something better than 'string of characters' (since I am under the impression that is also incorrect).  False vacuum (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article again, restoring those elements of my earlier edit which I still think are improvements, and incorporating changes you suggested. In particular, I went ahead and deleted the Dragon Book quote.  I hope this version meets with your approval.  False vacuum (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just thought I should give you a heads-up, since the editor who started the ANI thread failed to notify you. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 09:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And it may boomerang on the OP there if my reading of the discussion is any guide. Not to worry, Arthur. Collect (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
By what definition was it vandalism? At worst, it's merely a good faith edit. It's the number 1. It's going to turn up all over the place. --98.24.43.97 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism because you were told it was inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the first time I deleted it, I had not been told anything concerning the approval of the "in popular culture" section in the article. I am under the impression that such things are frowned upon.
 * If to the second time, first of all, it was unclear whether you had simply been reverting vandalism using recent changes or such, saw a blanking, and quickly reverted it. The lack of a warning or other notice given the first time made me think this was likely.
 * In any case, I fail to see why "because you were told" is a proper reason. I don't really hate to be a WikiLawyer, so Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This was clearly not the case. --98.24.43.97 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

restart the 12 month clock?
Hi Arthur, Please think back to last spring/summer when the kids main ip was. As you know that was blocked in Aug for 12 months but the persistent socking by definition restarts the time. To keep all the block-clocks unified as starting within the same week or so, please consider restarting the 12 month clock for that IP too. Thanks, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Child abuse
Hi Arthur. You rolled it back too far. In rightly deleting a load of newly added stuff you also deleted my edits, which were mainly getting rid of unsourced assertions, so you put the unsourced assertions back. Like you, I was trying to clean it up and get rid of crap. I have deleted them again now. -- Alarics (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I'm sorry.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia See Also Policy
You recently removed concentrated benefits and diffuse costs from the see also section of quite a few entries. However, Wikipedia See Also policy clearly states that links in the see also section can be "tangentially related"...
 * The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

So please undo your recent edits. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "See also" can be used for tangentially related topics; except it should not be used if the topic is better related to one of the other topics already there. In other words, if B should be in "A"s "See also", and C should be in "B"s "See also", then C should not be in "A"s "See also" unless it is closely related to A.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed CB/DC from Crony capitalism‎ because it was "only tangentially related". However, Wikipedia See Also policy clearly states that "tangentially related" topics are acceptable in the See Also section.  And how could they only be "tangentially related" when crony capitalism and CB/DC are both examples of government failure?


 * Please please please do more research and less editing. --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That means that only government failure should be listed in crony capitalism, not concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.  I see that wasn't done, either.  Now fixed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you fail to understand the concepts and their relationships to each other...and your edits clearly reflect this. Please thoroughly familiarize yourself with any concept BEFORE you make any edit to its entry.  --Xerographica (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrated vs Revealed Preference
I just told you to thoroughly research a concept BEFORE editing its entry. And what did you do? You immediately redirected demonstrated preference to revealed preference even though the difference between the two concepts was explicitly stated. Not only that but you didn't even have the common courtesy to bring up the proposed redirect on the talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin is the reason I ended up leaving Wikipedia. I got really tired of dealing with this kind of nonsense. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no difference stated, and there was nothing in "demonstrated" which wasn't in "revealed", other than quotes which would fit equally well in either one. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close
I am notifying all participants in Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:


 * Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

N oetica Tea? 04:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Top 100 global thinkers
I was surprised to see today that you were still working on this--after you left a comment on my talk page about it last month and then deleted it, I figured that was the end of it. Anyway, I'm restoring these awards to about 2/3s of the articles if you've no objection. It's a major and respected publication, so it doesn't seem to me excessive detail to mention it for most of these articles. (I agree it should be removed from more widely decorated figures like Krugman, Murakami, etc.) Let me know if you find this acceptable. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It was still block evasion; with the exception of those where it was placed in an incorrect section (such as "publications") or in the lead, I have no objection to reinclusion. It shouldn't be in the lead unless the person has no other recognition.  I question inclusion where two people are given one listing in the list, or if an organization's article is credited with the inclusion of invividuals, not necessarily associated with their activities in the organization, but I'll leave that to you.  After all, that IP cluster was one of the forces behind "granting" Michael Mann a Nobel Prize.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've restored some, but not all; in a few cases I've moved from the lead section to deeper in an article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi Arthur. I noticed that you spend a lot of time reverting edits of a blocked editor, e.g. recently at 2012 North American drought and on my talk page. I have a couple of questions about this - first, who is the editor that was blocked originally and why were they blocked? Second, why if there is well referenced information added are you reverting it, even after I had reviewed it and replaced it? WP:BLOCKEVASION doesn't say anything about mass reverting of socks, and I seen other admins declining speedy deletion request under WP:CSD even if they technically meet the criteria, because they are a net improvement to the project. I can understand why it might be sensible to revert their edits if they might be problematic, but I haven't seen any where this is the case - am I missing something? Third, have you/anyone else tried talking to the editor? They appear to me to be acting in good faith, so I'm a bit confused why they are repeatedly blocked. Even if they caused problems before, isn't there a chance they could change? It seems counterproductive to me to spend ages removing properly referenced material. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind if I answer SmartSE Arthur.
 * On content, that edit should be reposted if it has not already. In my book it is the winner of the "substantive contribution" award - out of literally thousands of entries - for this block-evading-external-link-spamming sock by at least an order of magnitude.  Too bad he doesn't discipline himself to just make a single edit of at least that much substance each session.
 * As for who the sock is, see my efforts at reforming the sock's behavior (partial account)
 * As for why we think he is blocked, see the edit and block log for this sock
 * Please let me know if you are irked or disagree with my interjection, Arthur.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Due to personal matters, I don't have as much time to spend on Wikipedia as I would like.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Please try and seek consensus on talk pages before making edits that are clearly disputed. --Xerographica (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Arthur Rubin is right about these redirects. As I've commented on your talk page, Xerographica, your edits are not constructive. --S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How is he "right" about the redirects when there are absolutely no reliable sources to support them? --Xerographica (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

VanderSloot page
'I don't recall if sources here have been misrepresented, other than repeating "reliable" sources misquoting the actual text of an advertisement, but on a number of SPLC-related articles, many sources have been misrepresented.' SPLC leads to a DAB page, so maybe you could be more specific? Just a suggestion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing terminal
On your user page, you have a box that claims: “Ending a sentence with a preposition is something that this user is okay with.” Prepositions are connectors. They connect two different words or phrases. The two connected words or phrases are terminals. The connecting preposition is between the terminals. If a sentence ends with a preposition, then one of the terminals is absent or difficult to locate. This is not conducive to communication. However, it is perfect accordance with the inevitable trend toward linguistic decadence. Lestrade (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade.
 * I see your point; but reverse Polish notation is perfectly respectable for having a connective at the end. (It appears that Wikipedia is reversed as to which is Polish notation and which reverse Polish notation....  Oh, well.)  "Why did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" is virtually impossible to write grammatically, but it's quite comprehensible.  It has split prepositions as well as split infinatives, but there is essentially a unique way of diagramming it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Said the little boy, tired of bedtime stories about Australia, to his father: "What did you bring that book, which I do no wish to be read to out of about Down Under, up for?" EEng (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "&hellip;only if we are convinced of the truth and importance of our ideas does the necessary enthusiasm arise to be intent on their clearest, finest, and most powerful expression&hellip;." (Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, vol. ii, § 285) Lestrade (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which this user is not okay. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of speech is "okay"? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Wiktionary on "OK", it can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, or interjection depending on the circumstances. In this case, I think it would be an adjective. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) The English language is subject to the rules of English grammar. English is not Reverse Polish Notation, so Rubin's comparison to RPN is not valid.  (2) I would re-write Rubin's example sentence "gramatically", but I have no idea what it means.  It's far from being "quite comprehensible".  But it seems to mean something like "I didn't want you to read from that book; why did you bring it?". (3) Nevertheless, the admonition against ending a sentence with a preposition is considered a myth by most grammarians, according to everything I've read.  Even among those who consider it wrong, it's not considered a serious error.  (4) Wikipedia does not have Polish Notation and Reverse Polish Notation switched; Wikipedia has them correct.  Polish Notation is a prefix notation, and Reverse Polish Notation is a postfix notation.  SimpsonDG (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

When you write, "I have no idea what it means. It's far from being 'quite comprehensible'" you are in full accordance with my claim that prepositional endings are "not conducive to communication."Lestrade (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
 * When you write, "I have no idea what it means," you show that you do not understand colloquial English. This is not a fault.  It can be parsed easily into to grammatical sentences:
 * Why did you bring up the book?
 * I did not want to be read to out of the book.
 * Can you reconstruct those into one sentence? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Term of art"
Re

Since you put that expression in quotation marks, I have to ask, what exactly do you mean? Were you just trying to come up with just something that vaguely sounds like an argument? It honestly seems that way, because "term of art" signifies nothing at all in this context.

It is simply nonsensical to tag any non-static IP address as a single-purpose account, because it is to be expected that the time span one IP was assigned to one editor covers only a short amount of time during which the person is quite likely to have made edits only in one limited area.

That's also why it makes perfect sense to be talking about single-purpose accounts, as opposed to single-purpose editors. If you actually believe that this label could ever be usefully applied on an IP to even potential benefit for the project, the consequential thing to do for you would be to advocate a move to Single-purpose editor. However, that would still not refute the argument above: The overwhelming majority of IPs are dynamic, and single-purpose tagging therefore makes zero sense.

I'll be checking here for a reply, or you're welcome to provide your take at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and at Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account. However "term of art" is quite nonsensical, not a valid reasoning. --78.35.241.177 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are being absurd. A "term of art" is a perfectly well-defined concept, meaning it's an expression not intended to be taken litterally, but having a specific meaning in context (here, Wikipedia).  In this case, a "single purpose account" need not be precisely "single" purpose (there can be a few edits not related to the purpose), nor an "account" (it is intended to indicate a single person, whatever editor name or IP address he/she uses.)  In most cases, however, we can only directly verify the editor name or IP address.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, November 22, 2012

00:52, November 22, 2012 (UTC)