User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2016

Your comment at AE regarding Volunteer Marek
Regarding this unblock, and this comment, are you going to have more to say at WP:AE? It might help the closing admins decide what to do with the complaint. Need more information (or more admin commentary) as to possible bad editing regarding Warsaw Pact. Also, if a topic ban is needed, what is the best scope. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

TBAN violation?
Here is the edit. An explicit link to this page was added. The JBS is a conservative political group with links to the Koch family. Springee (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it's a TBAN violation. I'm an involved admin; it seems better if involved non-admins or uninvolved admins brought it up on the appropriate boards.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

84
Hi Arthur. I don't understand why you reverted my edit of 84 (number). Your comment is "no indication of the number in the remaining article". If you mean the article Computus which I refer to, it says, "A completely distinct 84 - year cycle, the Insular latercus, was used in the British Isles. These old tables were used in Northumbria until 664, and by isolated monasteries as late as 931."

By the way, did you ever get my letter to you of July 19, 2014? (Or those of August 3 & 11, 2014?) I have just finished a paper on the work of Louis de Branges on proving the Riemann Hypothesis (Commentary on work of Louis de Branges). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That material is completely unsourced; the other 84-year table appears to have a source, but the notability is questionable. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's an interesting fact about the number 84. It's a multiple of the Julian Calendar period (28 years) and is also close enough to a lunar cycle that it was used for Easter tables. Of course this has nothing to do with the mathematical properties of 84. It's similar to pointing out that 365 is the number of days in a year (approximately). Do you object to mentioning this because it's not notable, or because you're not sure it's true (since the Computus article doesn't give a reference)? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's true. The other 84-year cycle seems to have a reference; I'd say it could be included in  if a valid source was included there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
COASTIE I am (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Pushing limits
Is this what you were referring to here? I think one has to assume that if an editor adds Koch related material to the article they would assume the article to be Koch related. I certainly noticed but honestly I would just be happy if HughD would gracefully bow out of the auto topics and we could both agree to leave each other alone (including not revisiting previous points of contention). Springee (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 16, February-March 2016 by ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
 * Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
 * A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
 * Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Can anything be done about HughD's tantrum like behavior?
I'm trying to avoid the bait that HughD is leaving out but it really seems to me that he is going too far. After the recent ANI you would think a smart editor would avoid old disputes. HughD instead has driven right back into the Chrysler article and the MJ related content, totally ignoring previous discussions and setting up RfC's without allowing others a chance to interject. Do you have any suggestions? Springee (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hewitt
I agree that Hewitt has had quite a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works...and have been disagreeing with his content suggestions for another article...I stumbled over to his Wikipedia article, looked at the talk page...was wondering about the IR...if it's true that this is what his research has predominately been about for many years then isn't that in itself reason enough for inclusion? that is, even if IR itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...it has been determined that Hewitt himself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...so isn't it relevant/of note what he's been working on??68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. We only have his word that that is what he is working on, though. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was just about to post to Arthur, a long time editor in Carl Hewitt, that IP had posted on Help desk, but I see IP made the same good choice. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, normally, a notable person's statement of what he is working on could be included. However, Professor Hewitt has an abnormally high opinion of himself; whether or not justified, there are no sources other than himself and his immediate colleagues for that opinion, so we should not include it.  A short statement that he is working on Inconsistency Robustness, without implying that he's getting anywhere, seems appropriate.  I don't think he would like me to edit his article, though.  I'll see if I can think of something which seems appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, seems reasonable/allowable to at least mention briefly what the individual has been/currently is working on (even if the cite is to the person's own statements)..as far as describing the work, could just say what the work is attempting to accomplish/what it purports to accomplish...so as to not embellish it/suggest it is notable in and of itself etc...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I didn't initiate it, we're working, at Talk:Carl Hewitt, toward a statement which acknowledges that Carl has been working in "inconsistency robustness". If that idea turns out to be unusable, Carl might want it out of his article, but he might not get his way.... In the unlikely event that Carl has produced breakthroughs in two independent fields, namely the Actor model of computation and inconsistency robustness, we can report on them when (or if) they are generally accepted, and have some comments about them when (or if) they are generally acknowledged.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the article talk page is semiprotected... If you (the IP) has further insights as to what might be included in Carl Hewitt, you're welcome to post on this talk page, at least at present.  If you get obnoxious, I reserve the right to recind that permission, and ask you to post on more directly appropriate pages.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'm not that interested in his article..seems you two (and perhaps others too) have it under control...have been looking into him a bit due to his odd behavior over at the incompleteness theorem...but when looking at that TALK for his article the issue I described jumped out at me..I asked the question at the help desk to try to verify if my thinking on it was generally correct or if I was missing something...probably the reasonable idea of simply stating briefly what he's been up to got obscured by his self-promotional nature..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Chrysler. ''This edit summary is a violation of WP:AGF, and also an example of poor reading comprehension. Several of the "support" editors said multiple times that it would be an improvement to make it more balanced, and to include context and balance the criticism with more positive facts about Chrysler's public image.Do you think it would be helpful if the supporting editors decided to accuse everyone who didn't agree with them of being "pro-corporate" or "pro-business"? The point of the AGF policy is to have productive discussions about content, not contributors. If you think anyone has a COI, is abusing multiple accounts, or otherwise !voting in a way that violates policy, then you should say so in an appropriate venues. Otherwise, please stop making uncharitable assumptions about others, or at least keep them to yourself.Also, your first count of the number of editors supporting the proposal was completely off the mark. Your correction was only slightly better, from zero to one. The actual number at the time of your edits was four !votes in favor, and five opposed, which is not overwhelming either way and suggests extending the discussion to find stronger consensus is the obvious step.'' Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's obvious that EllenCT is anti-rich and anti-corporation to the point that her edits usually fail NPOV; I still see no reason why the RfC should be extended because the (disruptive, although not always in violation of guidelines) proposer pinged a (possibly) related WikiProject. The discussion should continue, but the RfC as stated is an epic fail.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussions might lead to a consensus that some product-related material should be included, but there seems to be consensus against the specific proposal.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Suicide? Allowing a 5 to 4 discussion to continue is "suicide"? Or is reverting the continuation without tacking on a personal attack on someone is tantamount to "suicide"? When you have a long dispute between evenly divided groups, adding personal attacks to the content and policy discussion does not help move it to a strong consensus. That just drags in new things to fight over, and inflames tempers. I can't imagine why you think this is helpful.If you really have a problem with HughD or EllenCT, you should find an appropriate venue for those complaints, and keep your posts and edit summaries on topic at Talk:Chrysler. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no point in continuing the RfC; it has clearly failed. Further discussion might lead to inclusion of product-related material.  And "discussing" ideas with Hugh or Ellen is pointless. They never change their minds, regardless of the merits of the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 April 2016‎
 * Got it. There's a couple editors you've identified as just awful. Whenever you see one of them in a dispute, you'll chime in to announce to everyone else how awful they are, and therefore whatever they want must be rejected. I guess you'd want all of us to follow your example?You know there's some prominent articles on companies filled with product-related material, including controversies, public image problems, recalls and more? Holden, for example, another car company like Chrysler and somebody has gone and written stuff about how some of their cars had problems. And Ace Books. And BAE Systems. And -- well, here's the whole list of them. Go delete all that product-related material right away. Hurry. It does not belong.I don't have anything more to add to this that could be of any use. Whatever is going on between you and Hugh and Ellen is not my problem. Good luck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith until proven otherwise. When an editor demonstrates inability or unwillingness to follow policies and guidelines, I take that into account. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten about you.
Real life has again taken me away from en.wp. I hope to be able to get back to your page in the next 48 hours or so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was sufficiently rushed that this landed on your page instead of Carl's. Apologies for the bother.  I've updated the article; please add additional cites and wordsmithing as the spirit moves you.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Books & Bytes - Issue 18
 The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 18, June–July 2016 by, Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
 * Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
 * TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
 * OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Looking for suggestions
Arthur, I was hoping to pick your brains with regards to the best way to handle a content dispute and resolution. The primary discussion is on the auto project page []. I'm trying to decide which method might be most effective in terms of getting other eyes on the topic. I'm considering RfC as well as the NPOV notice board. NPOV is good in that it gets a reasonable amount of traffic but I'm not sure I see this as 100% a NPOV issue (non-NPOV arguments have been put forth). RfC would seem like a good idea but given the conversation is already on the related project page I'm not sure it would work well. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks. Springee (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a violation of the Canvassing guidelines. Springee's attempts to involve hand-picked editors to help him in a dispute is a part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing. Users who have been inappropriately canvassed generally should avoid getting involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If he's asking advice from uninvolved editors, that would not be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Although your interpretation of WP:WEIGHT is absurd, I won't intervene unless it appears in WP:NPOV, and probably not then.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Springee chose you and User:Collect for one reason: he sees you as allies from his previous dispute at the Chrysler article. That's exactly what the canvassing guidelines prohibit WP:VOTESTACKing. He doesn't want advice. He wants votes. If my arguments are in error, many other editors are capable of saying so, if Springee would stop bludgeoning the process long enough for them to speak.<P>If Springee can't take a step back give other editors the space work on finding consensus, all the advice he needs is at Dispute resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Arthur, do you have an opinion on the most appropriate forum for this dispute? Thanks Springee (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * . Probably an RfC, but, add a pointer in WP:NPOVN and possibly WT:WEIGHT.  Perhaps point to WP:BALASP, which goes to the meat of 's argument.  I won't comment outside this page unless attacked by Dennis or invited as part of a clearly neutral invitation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked whether that section was stable.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Arthur, on the project page there are two articles under discussion, the Ford truck article and the Chevy article. The additions to each are similar in nature but not the same content. Would you suggest one RfC to cover both or one for each article.  Springee (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One RfC, but make sure that people can !vote and discuss the issues separately if they want to. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow up question. At what point does this sort of thing become a personal attack? [] Springee (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it's a personal attack, you should ignore it as long as you can, and only bring it up on the appropriate boards once the RfC is resolved. I don't think he thinks it's an attack; if it is, it's only because he hasn't a clue.  BALAPS specifically states the appropriate weight can be none.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the 3RR rule apply to talk page reversions? I feel like this is really going over the line [], see the removal of my talk page comments end of Oct 15-16th. I tried restoring but I'm done now. Springee (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:3RR. 3RR applies to talk pages, except for your own user talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So should be sanctioned for both WP:TPG and WP:EW violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Arthur,, Fyddlestyx started an ANI regarding the incident []. I don't want Dennis to be sanctioned since I think in general he is a good editor.  Honestly what I would really like is for someone to figuratively slap him up side the head and get him to realize he has been off the mark with the long string of accusations he's made against me regarding the recent RfC etc.  There was no forum shopping, no bad faith negotiation prior to the RfC, WEIGHT applies even if facts aren't in dispute, and certainly the results of the RfC should be clear and an official closing shouldn't be required, etc.  I'm most frustrated that he is normally reasonable but just seems to refuse to see things this time.  Anyway, I'm not going to push the issue to ANI/3RR etc.  I'll wait until the RfC is closed.  Springee (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

2017
Brexit invoke date has been announced by the UK government as March 2017. It's quite an important scheduled event which deserves to be included. It's far more relevant than a solar eclipse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMX (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you provide a source, it seems appropriate for 2017. However, the election, the official notification to the EU, and actual exit date(s) are really discussing a single event, and it's not clear how many listings it should have.
 * The elections, no.
 * I'm not that fond of the solar eclipses; perhaps we should propose, in WT:RY, sorting those to "year in science". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Barry Jennings'
hi,

Thanks for your attempt to restore said page, deletion of which i, for one, regret. If you should have a backup, i would be grateful for a copy (here, anywhere, or by PM). Or is the content still available anywhere? (If it is, on WP, i didn't yet figure out how to find/get it). Best Regards from Vienna: wda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wda (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

> Article restored to User:Wda/Barry Jennings. ... THANKS. I'm done with it in the sense that i've made a copy; wouldn't mind at all if it stayed available as User:Wda/Barry_Jennings. "... Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11" has also been collected & published by Consensus911.org, so it won't go down the memory hole just yet. Best! --Wda (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 19, September–October 2016 by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter 19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
 * New Library Card Platform and Conference news
 * Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your note on my user talk page
You reverted a few of my edits of the Stevo Todorcevic article

You wrote: "Mathematical genealogy" is self-reported, and the list is not here; other material is just unsourced.


 * "Mathematical genealogy" is self-reported, and the list is not here; - I do not know what "self-reported" means and which way the site is not reliable but the PhD list IS THERE. I was able to verify validity of each PhD list entry online or by sending a e-mail message to the corresponding University library.


 * " other material is just unsourced." - this is a false statement. The other material is mainly


 * As per the RSC fellowship detailed appraisal, the discovery of rho functions, an entirely new mathematical object, is one out of the five in Set theory in the twentieth century. The rho functions (and the various applications they have found) are celebrated as a major advance in understanding of mathematics and an extended period of exciting progress.


 * and is fully sourced by RSC Fellowship Citation and Detailed Appraisal: Stevo Todorcevic

Kindly, please, put back the removed text in the article.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since your comments on the Stevo Todorcevic talkpage are irational, based on meaningless collections of phrases, pointless disqualifications of the citation and detailed appraisal I'll wait a day or two to see other people's comments (if any) and after revert all of your reverts.( "as it is so hyperbolic that rephrasing is impossible" - hm!)--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 11:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

173 is a notable number
I would like to understand why you reverted my edit to 173 (number). 173 is included on the List of notable numbers, so I accept it is notable. This is why I added that list to the "see also" list on the article. But you reverted that edit, with the rather unhelpful comment nonsense "See also". I don't see why you claim it is "nonsense" - reviewing the guidelines at MOS:SEEALSO, it seems to be in line with everything there. Would you mind explaining your objection to including the link to this in the "See also" section?--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To the extent that appears in List of notable numbers, the article should be in the Wikipedia namespace.  In my opinion, list of notable numbers should never appear in a "see also"; although it might be acceptable (in rare cases) as a Wikilink in the body of the article.  I'm planning to remove all instances in the "see also" section.  If you want to object, contact WikiProject Numbers.  For the moment, I've created an alternate account to do these edits; if you can establish consensus for your opinion, they can easily be reversed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that pointer, but there does not seem to be any conversation along those lines at WikiProject Numbers or its Talk page. And I can't find a reason in what you have said above: you just said that it is your opinion.  We are all entitled to our opinions, but obviously a global change like you are planning should be based on something more than one author's personal opinion.  Particularly when as far as I can see, it is in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.  So I would be grateful if you would be so gracious as to explain your objection to including this link in the "See also" section.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The section List of notable numbers, List of notable numbers, and probably most of the other subsections of List of notable numbers, are really "list of numbers with a Wikipedia article", and should not have a backlink. I'll hold off removing the rest for a week or so to avoid problems, but there is no good reason for a backlink to articles about Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In case I failed to ping you there, please comment at WT:WikiProject Numbers. I'll adide by consensus, but I don't think WP:SEEALSO provides adequate justification for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I will follow the discussion there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, now that I read your message on the WikiProject, I think I understand some of your comments above better. It seems that you were under the impression that I had added instances to the "see also" section of many articles, and so your proposal would be undoing my changes.  Not so.  I only added that to one article (173).  --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Supermoon
What sort of advanced degrees do YOU have to be able to even KNOW the difference among causation, correlation and coincidence and does CONTEXT not matter to you? At all? Really? You have reverted the article to an outright lie -- which it was BEFORE I corrected papers and found yours to be an F. And what country are you from, anyway?

PROUDLY AND REPEATEDLY ***** CENSORED ***** BY SOME DEPLORABLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Thom Prentice (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The first and third source clearly say there is no correlation. Perhaps they meant to say "causal relationship", but we may not change what they said. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Year articles
Would it be a problem, if I deleted the US prez inaugurations from all the Year articles? GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There might be some which are internationally significant, not just because of international significance of the election. For a potential example, if an important foreign visitor were assassinated.  But I can't think of any.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Refusal to allow them in the 2009, 2013 & 2017 articles, creates inconsistency. Anyways, Why did you accuse me of disruption in your last edit-summary? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RY, as if you haven't been notified of it before. Elections are only appropriate if a "first" of some kind, and inaugurations could conceivable be appropriate if internationally significant for a reason other than election being internationally significant. This does not apply to events before Wikipedia was founded, but I would have no objection to removing inaugurations in which nothing unusual happened, for any election in any country. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already asked if it will be alright to delete US presidential inaugurations from all the Year articles. Such a blanket deletions would be alright, as they're more appropriately kept at the Year in the United States articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong forum. Discussion for that should be in WP:WikiProject Years and WP:WikiProject United States.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've contacted those WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 death
Good evening,

I am trying to mention Rita Barberá (great mayor of Spain) in the list of deceased in 2016 in English, but shortly after you delete it. I do not understand why, I'm new here and I think I'm not doing anything with bad faith. In addition, I consider that this woman for 24 years (even the scandalous cases of corruption of her council and political party) was considered the most powerful Mayor of the country, so I think it is something that should be mentioned here.

I pray that I can understand my novice status and I apologize for the inconvenience. I would like you to help me as the revocation was on your part.

Thank you very much, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. If you can convince us that she was internationally notable, it might be done.  All you've claimed so far supports her appearance in the "Deaths" section of 2016 in Spain, which doesn't exist.  Talk to WikiProject Spain about where she should be placed in articles about Spain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I really feel very bad about my insistence and I fear that I will become very annoying. Rita was able to put Valencia on a map: he managed to host the 5th World Meeting of Families with the visit of Pope Benedict XVI, he built the Formula 1 circuit to call the Spanish Grand Prix in this category (although both celebrations have ended Uncovering terrible cases of corruption of the City Council with Barberá as chief, being this tried two days before dying). If these two actions really are not enough, I will admit your opinions and I will not make any other attempt to mention or leave messages.

Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Your userpage
Arthur Rubin; why "User:Arthur Rubin", your userpage is protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.125.61 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall requesting protection, but the log shows it was protected in 2012 because of vandalism. Why do you ask?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Michigan kid"
Hi, Arthur Rubin.

It seems that the "Michigan kid" is back. Beagel (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016
Hi, just curious about why some events on the 2016 article were not notable. For example, why was the impeachment of the South Korean President removed, but the impeachment of the Brazilian President is fine? And why are bombings in Brussels and Lahore in the article, when other bombings and earthquakes with a much higher death toll have been removed? Are there some specific guidelines for notability? I'm not contesting the removals, just wondering for future reference. Neegzistuoja (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Double image templates
Do these work?

For 2009 page... Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.

For 1994 page… Dick Sargent and Kim Il-Sung.

Do you think it's nearly even? Because I have been going back and forth on my phone. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those look good to me, at least on my phone. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. It's a deal. But I can't edit the 1994 page because it's semi protected. I'll add in the double image template of Farrah and Michael in the 2009 article and you change Sargent and Kim's image for that template. Agree? 206.45.11.108 (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't easily do it on my phone; I'll have to wait until I get home. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. I'm not rushing you. Just take your time. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

lightbulb listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulb. Since you had some involvement with the lightbulb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

sock puppets
FYI, I suspect Hugh has been editing via IP addresses. I requested an investigation but didn't realize check user can't be used with IP editors. Anyway, the edit patterns seem very similar (my original filing [], additional edits that seem suspicious but are from an Amazon IP outside the US.[]) Springee (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Hugh's edits were OK when you were "stalking" him, but not OK when he was blocked, so I'm not the one to describe the characteristics that would identify him. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have suggestions for dealing with an IP editor I am presuming is HughD? At Eddie Eagle we have a series of IP editors who are making very HughD like changes.  The IP addresses started in Chicago but are now all over the world but all Amazon Technologies based IPs (ie someone is trying to avoid being tracked).  While these aren't the same addresses that are disruptively editing the Corvette Leaf Spring article we again are seeing HughD like behavior and Chicago then Amazon IPs.  As before with HughD it wasn't that any individual edit was a true problem, it was the systematic pattern.  In the case of EE I requested semi-protected status a while back because of a clear UK based IP troll.  Felsic2 tried to argue that it was a content dispute.  Half true but the IP refuses to engage in talk page discussions.  When talk page discussions are requested we do have an issue.  Anyway, do you have any suggestions? Springee (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Not a clue.  Normally, WP:ANI would be normally be an appropriate place to bring it up, but that seems a hostile venue at this point.  You might ping  the blocking editor for advice.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finishing up some work at the moment, but if you drop me a message on my talk with the relevant information I'd be happy to look into it tonight or tomorrow. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)