User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 2008
| Archive 2009 →


Contents

Copyright breach for Simpsons material query

Hi Arthur,

Myles325 here. I made a contribution to the Talk Page for Debagging, and you removed some dialogue from a Simpsons episode I had quoted there, on the grounds that it was a “clear breach of copyright”. I cannot agree with this. I quoted about 10 lines or so, and only in for purposes of research. It has ALWAYS been accepted that such minor cites constitute fair dealing. If your rules were to be generally employed, most research into anything would be severely hamstrung, and most especially in WP. Are you sure you were justified in removing this material?

Further, you removed my additions to the Article Proper on the grounds that quotes from the Simpsons could not be accepted as legitimate citations. Well, I take your point Arthur, but sheesh, I mean it’s an article on people having their trousers pulled down already. I couldn’t find anything in Magna Carta. Notthere (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I consider that extract more than a "minor" part. On the other hand, The Simpsons pushes the edge of copyright violations themselves, so they might be willing to accept that.
Even so, we have a couple of books in the references section of the school pranks article, even if I'm not sure that the pranks in the article actually are mentioned in those books. Anything there would be allowable as an RS, even if those books would not normally be considered such. The Simpsons can't really be used as a reference from a real phenomenon, only as a reference for notability if the phenomenon is independantly verified. So, I don't think we can use that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert on copyright law - I just play one on TV - but since the Simpsons site I quoted from is freely available to everyone, then how does this affect copyright? As the site owners and the Simpsons people cannot lose money, what rationale would they have for taking action, or even being miffed? I mean it is not as if someone is going to read MY small sample and then NOT go and watch that episode or go to the site. Rather, the reverse. And there wasn't even any spoilers in it. Still, it is probably worth discussing this, as the whole issue of copyright is so important to this project, and many other such projects. Notthere (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR-again

Honestly, every time I add content to that article you find some reason to revert, and every time you have been shown my edit was accurately sourced and I prevail. Can you please at least ask before you revert? It's highly recommended at wikipedia to use the talk pages to avoid juvenile edit warring. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be accurate as to Texas, but not as to California, and you created the clear implication that ICR was accredited in California, which is false. Also, I tried to only revert one of your 7 edits. If I reverted more than one, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Where are your sources????? What does "unaccredited accrediting agency" mean? TRACS is listed on the federal accrediting agency list, so please stop editing with omniscient assertions rather than sources. These edits are helter-skelter, like throwing spaghetti at the wall.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, you've put a POV tag on this claim: "TRACS accreditation is not accepted in the state of Texas". Here's a quote from the source, which is easily found by clicking on the link in the reference: "Texas does not recognize accreditation by TRACS". How is this edit POV? This is frustrating. As is your reluctance to discuss first.Professor marginalia (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's POV, because it implies that TRACS accreditation was accepted in the state of California. You are defending the statement's accuracy, which I quite agree with. See both the hidden comment and the edit summary for my reasoning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:ICR - when they were in CA, they had TRACS apparently. That was previously in the article, though removed by me Now that they moved to TX, where TRACS is insufficient, they're seeking SACS because they now need something besides TRACS. That's it, not a pov issue but a confusion perhaps. Now that you've gone ahead and made some claim, unsourced, that TRACS was "not accepted in CA", source it please. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this somehow got dropped: That was previously in the article, though removed by me [1] because there was something funny about it-it looked like they'd lost accreditation, though published sources now available suggest that it was their move to TX that precipitated their no longer being accredited there. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If TRACS had been accepted in by California, the lawsuit wouldn't have been necessary. The settlement (at least the summary) doesn't mention TRACS, and the "current" (after 1995) exception also doesn't mention TRACS. Why the fact of TRACS accreditation is relevant to either California or Texas accreditation would need to be sourced (to someone other than TRACS or ICR). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with using deductive reasoning here instead of sources is that it uses assumptions that might prove correct but can't be assumed. I don't know anything about TRACS accreditation, but the article at WP about TRACS suggests that with the many changes they were forced to make in the last decade, the situation ten years ago won't necessarily apply today. Without a source, the claim can't stand--it's too strongly worded. There's probably an easier way to solve the problem, edits where nothing is implied about CA & accreditation at all. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not remove the TRACS allusion all together? Since it doesn't appear they have TRACS now, and didn't pertain to the state approval in CA, it's almost a digression. Take it out and we won't have so source some claim about TRACS and approval in California, since TRACS is purely an accrediting body for religious schools (or used to be at least), and CA doesn't even require religious universities to get approval. I'm guessing the state regs and TRACS probably never even intersect. Removing TRACS in that spot makes sense at least. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. However, if we don't say it's accredited by TRACS, someone else will say it's unaccredited. Although, in a rational world, it wouldn't be accredited, that's not where we are today. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I don't think it's accurate to say it's accredited by TRACS now. That's why I removed any such claim in Nov. Though I couldn't confirm anything, it looked like they'd lost their accreditation for some reason because neither the ICR nor TRACS were claiming it any longer. Without a current source accurately confirming the claim they were accredited, I took it out. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vitamer

Thanks for the undeletion. I'll fix the refs. Blast the request page-- on the main page it says to add the template to the top of the page, and it really doesn't mean that literally. You're supposed to add it below the "request line". Arggh. SBHarris 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't the one who undeleted it, and I'm still not convinced it (the article) is appropriate. However, I understand your confusion. Any specific suggestions as to where templates should be placed would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've added refs to the Vitamer article. It's a completely necessary technical word, for reasons explained in the TALK page and the one ref the article already contained when somebody PROD'ed it (without a good reason given). Or go to pubmed [2] and type in "vitamer" to see more than 2000 peer-reviewed scientific articles where the word is used.

As for suggestions for the instruction box, I added some specific text to it, explaining procedures which might seem obvious to the software creators, but won't be to a lot of relative newbies in making complaints of this nature (this is my first, and I've created a fair number of articles). Feel free to modify, but you must see screwups of this kind frequently, and they aren't ALL because people don't read. The main problem is the "date box" doesn't appear as such in the edit page the link takes you to. You have to recognize it from the HTML/markup, which not everybody will, immediately. SBHarris 23:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the animated public service announcement series

Please explain why you are deleting this information before I have a chance to post and reference it. Thank you. Kita

I was the second to delete the article. May I suggest that what you need to do is work out the details on a subpage of your User page, and request someone to move it to the main area when it's done. You would need, at the least, a WP:RS referring to the concept. Listing (apparently non-notable) animated campaigns will not help your cause. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Why can't a book in which Barrett wrote three chapters be listed in his article? Should it be under "selected publications" instead? I didn't put it there because he didn't write all of the book (i.e. not a coauthor or coeditor). The "selected publications" even says "please expand". Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

animated PSA series

Hi Arthur, Thanks for your quick response. The producer director Firdaus Kharas is already listed in Wikipedia. HIs PSA series "The Three Amigos" won a Peabody Award this past June and has been supported by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as an effective tool against HIV AIDS. The spots have been tranlsted into 41 languages to date. Would it be best to include this information under Mr. Kharas's listing then? Originally I thought setting up an animated PSA series category would be useful as none exists in Wikipedia. Your advice here? Kita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiastarling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article "David Pipe"

Hello.

You reverted changes I made to the article on the footballer David Pipe. The changes I made were accurate.

Bristol Rovers now play in league 1, not league 2. And Pipe is known on the terraces at the Memorial Stadium as Pipey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.173.172 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Attiitude

Please moderate your behaviour, not only was your recent message to me pompous it contained incorrect speculation: "you've made it clear you're not interested in improving the article." This is quite wrong. I made an edit to correct a bias that is all too common in Wikipedia, that is the default country is the USA. My edit was for the benefit of a global readership, many of whom will not have the knowledge of US cities as you may have. Therefore I have replaced United States. Please do not remove, and please be polite in the future correspondence with other editors as you risk driving away those trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrical insulation

Please could you give your reason for reverting my change to this article? I had simply given the external link a clearer description. Rather than improve the article your change damaged it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dartmouth College at BASIC

A fuller description of the location is needed so there are other colleges with the same name, for example, www.dartmouthcollege.co.uk/bayard/int/ , please do not revert otherwise you will confuse readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ICR

Another revert. I made a good effort to fully explain the edit and sources on talk page, so far ignored on your part. This is getting old. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources did not clearly support the contentions; but even if they did, the question of whether ICR has any positive reputation outside creationists is open, and there sources to the contrary. If you would state that it is the opinion of those sources that ICR has infulence, I wouldn't like it, but it would be in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse my bluntness. I am not convinced that you bother to check the references before you revert. (exhibit a). My edit was promptly restored by another editor who has read the source and agrees with the claim. Several times you have added or restored content simply on the basis of your own opinion of things, not sourced. And in this case, as before, you are reverting based on what you've managed somehow to read between the lines instead of simply what's written on the page. My edit does not say this organization "has any positive reputation outside creationism", does it? It said it has been "significant in shaping anti-evolutionist thought", which is not only sourced but largely self evident to anyone paying attention to the part they've played in the development of anti-evolutionist thought in the US in the latter half of the twentieth century. As several sources put it, the scientific community, who'd almost completely ignored them, was bowled over to discover a little late in the game just how much of an influence they had over attitudes in the mainstream. This should not be completely new to you, since a few examples are described on the talk page. I know you are an experienced editor, but any one of us might need a reminder now and again. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

QW

You opinion would be greatly appreciated in this matter. [3]Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deletion of LogicNets entry as prominent expert system

Hello Arthur,

I am not sure why you keep deleting the entry for LogicNets in the prominent expert systems list. LogicNets has been around since 1999, and has been developed in collaboration with NASA. For you to delete and entry like LogicNets and keep listings like Informavores is not correct. Please explain your rationale or stop doing this without explaining yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.159.88 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to cat flap

Hi there! I have no opinion one way or another on this article, but you replaced the references tag with the reflist template in cat and explained your edit as "clean up" in the edit summary. As the in appropriate page and section in the manual of style says, both ways of making the list of references are acceptable. - Enuja (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to replace any <references/> tags unless they were also within <small></small> tags., but I may have made a mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I certainly appreciate what you are doing in terms of removing extra white-space, et cetera. Thanks. But recognize that according to AWB rules of use: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. Just thought you should know. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point indeed. (Sorry Arthur, could not resist. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that sounds like a stupid reason. Obviously comes from a computer tech rather than a copyeditor ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyle Zapato

Oops looks like I was in the middle of a major cleanup at the same time you were editing. But I think we seem to be in agreement about several things. Rather than try to piece together the changes you made, do you mind looking over the ones I made and adding yours? If you do mind, let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we were thinking of the same approach, but you made some changes I didn't think of. If you're done, I'll work on reinserting my changes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'm done, sorry again for stomping on your edits. Katr67 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Alex Jones (radio). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — madman bum and angel 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your assertion that you reverted your fourth revision, you reverted your fifth: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Please note that you are also not entitled to three-reverts per day; you're edit-warring in any event and can be blocked for such. Cheers, — madman bum and angel 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Well, I intended to restore the 3rd revert, merely adding, "According to Jones", but apparently I failed to do so. Even so, all the reversions consist of noting that information about other living people, which were sourced only to the subject of the article, was so unsourced. I need a wikibreak, anyway, though."

Decline reason: "reason — Enjoy the break. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Regarding the User:3rdMouse account of yours, that would be block evasion. See WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well; I just thought I would put a note on the User page saying it's me. It's not important, though, so it can wait. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My oops, regarding Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth

Hi. I am posting this comment regarding your revert of my edit. What I meant to write was, at least eight stars to pass within one light-year of the Sun within one million years. In other words, I messed up. I didn't realise my mistake until your revert. The source mentions that at least eight stars to pass closer than Proxima Centauri within the next one million years, Alpha Centauri and Barnard's Star being two of them. I'm pretty sure by the wording that it means they will pass within one light-year. However, if you dispute this, I could change it to within 4.3 light-years. Of course one million light-years is a big mistake, there are roughly 2x10^11 stars within just 10^5 light-years! So, it wasn't meant to be nonsense, I just added an extra "million", probably because I saw the other million. So, if you don't mind, may I re-add the information (it's sourced) that "at least eight stars are expected to pass within 4.3 light-years of the Sun, including Alpha Centauri and Barnard's Star"? Also, I think we should have an article listing stars to pass near the Sun in the near future. Appologies for any inconvenience. Thank you. ~AH1(TCU) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked at the moment, but I see your point. Go ahead and add it, with references. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Y10k

We edit conflicted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (4th nomination). I leave you to put your comment back in the light of my edit. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Do not Leave Messages on My Talk Page

I do not wish to speak to you. I did not violate the revert rule, just reverting vandalism.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've still done 3 reverts on that article today. You haven't violated WP:3RR yet (at least, as I write this). And, if you add the "information" again, your name will appear prominently in WP:AN/3RR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the notice was unnecessary, because you've already been blocked for 3RR. Sorry about telling you something you already have been informated by multiple admins. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason I asked you not to write on my talk page is because you were acting in what seemed to me to be an annoying bureaucratic way. Sometimes when something is contested, you try rewriting it many times to please everybody. This means that you rewrite with slightly different language multiple times. It isn't an edit war until people get entrenched and cannot come to compromise anymore. Your knee-jerk 3RR tagging at (arguably) 2RR seemed to me to be rude at best.
As for being blocked in the past, it was the same sort of thing. I made multiple rewrites trying to find language that was acceptable, but failed, and got blocked. The only difference was that in the previous case I got pissed off, and said hotheaded things.
Look, if you just try to see things the other guy's way a little, I will extend the same courtesy.Likebox (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

small peeve

I wish you would be a little less destructive of things as you edit. For instance, if you believe as you do that Model (abstract) does not belong under the Philosophy/Logic banner, could you at least put it under the "maths ratings|field=foundations" while you are at it? This is actual disruption, unlike your crying about the math logic category. Likewise today with all of this metalogic. You could at the VERY least put a link under "See also", so that someone in the future may write something intelligent about any connections. (I suppose you have already decided for everyone that there are none. Way to go.)

You have a very narrow view about the way things are supposed to be around here. Please remember this is a publically editable Wikipedia, and you can't have your narrow view to the exclusion of other views here. Why cry so much about metalogic? Just put it under mathematical logic and logic and leave it alone. It's just a shame that I'm so open-minded about things all the time only to be bullied around by you and a team of others.

Restriction of subject matter is a strong source of identity, especially in the abstract arts like math and logic. Get over it. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to a diff? I don't think I changed Model (abstract) lately (i.e, in 2007 or later). I moved Model theory out of Category:Metalogic because it's in Category:Model theory, but.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Your summary was "No way" diff. You are taking the conservative interpretation. If the category Model theory is under Metalogic, then it also makes sense that the article is also. I think it usually works that way. It's only when you are taking pains to exclude certain subject matter that we find ourselves skirting things like this. I get the sense that you are holding your nose already just to have a metalogic category. Maybe someday the WP will be sufficiently advanced so as to have a metamathematics category and a metalogic category with plenty of material on both that is unique to each, and also with plenty of overlap too. Ebony and ivory... Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was reading the wrong diff. Sorry. Still, Model (abstract) is not a topic in mathematical logic, or (at least as I see it) philosophical logic. Systemics, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV

Arthur Rubin:"negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate." Please supply source showing "considered inapproriate". Am concerned that your statement above applies to editor getting advice on how to deal with nonWP:POLICY editor. SmithBlue (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy page

I think the discussion should continue on the homeopathy page. I thought of copying your comments to the homeopathy page. What do you think? Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. It may be my concerns and conjectures are without merit, but whether the paper may be appropriate for inclusion in Homeopathy should be discussed somewhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of algorithms category

Hello, Big O notation is very often used by Analysis of algorithms. I don't see why you removed 'Analysis of algorithms' category from this article. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's used, but my interpretation of the (see also) section of article A for topics used in subject A, rather than subjects which use subject A, or articles which someone studing subject A would be interested in. This relationship is solely in the reverse direction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:

{{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Peace

The Barnstar of Peace
message Wshallwshall (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to give you this barnstar because you didn't call me an idiot, even though I deserved it. I messed up on that school bullying article... quite a brain fart. I'm new to the issue of moving pages and I messed up. Thank you for dealing with it factually instead of pointing out that it was stupid.

Date preferences

Try playing around with your preferences again - if a person has their preferences set to day-month-year, the software gets rid of the comma automatically. If they are set to month-day-year, the comma is visible. I just checked this on my user page. Natalie (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The specific example is [[25 January]] [[2008]], which shouldn't have a comma if date preferences are off. I agree that, if date preferences are on, the software takes care of it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think all accounts have date preferences, and they are all automatically set to D-M-Y, as are the IP settings. That, of course, might have changed. But it really doesn't matter how it looks in the edit window, because the software will take care of it no matter what. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

binary relation

I'd like to point out that superscripted "th" is shunned by manuals of style, including, most importantly, our own guideline. -- EJ (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that only applies to numbers, not variables. I suppose "jth" is not much worse than "jth", but we need to watch the italics very carefully, as "jth" is just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, formally speaking MOSNUM indeed applies to numbers, but I think it is natural to use the same principle for other objects as well unless there is a compelling reason against it. What you say about italics is true though. -- EJ (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Your input in this RfC would be most appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?

Hi,

Hi, What do you mean by a personal attack? I am using a new software called Huggle to revert edits, how exactly am I not helpful, nothing in this history shows that? The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 20:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment I made on User_talk:Area69 please explain your comment.

Thanks,

-- The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 20:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in context, I don't think I would have used uw-vand2, but uw-test2. There's a difference between clearly irrelevant or inappropriate comments on a talk page and vandalism. Sorry about the reference to huggle templates. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RightGot and school prank

Hi,

Is there any reason to assume this article is going to eventually be useful? I was going to AfD it (as RightGot removed the prod) but I see the old page (i.e. the one now at school bullying, or School Bullying: List of Actions or wherever on Earth it's ended up) has quite a history of AfDs and didn't want to go messing around. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the list of pranks seems to have two sources which have lists of pranks, so it's more difficult to AfD. I have no objection to attempting to AfD the article, but the sources may be real. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

In order to avoid the appearance of redundancy, I went in a slightly different direction and moved the old talk page to Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment - examples, then moved the page at the new title you created back to Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on regular number

I've been in email contact with Dgutson (talk · contribs) regarding his edits to regular number, which seem to be original research. It was looking likely that he would revert them himself after I showed him the relevant policies, but his plan was to wait a little longer and think a little more before doing so. So, while I think your revert is correct, I think he is a good faith editor who with some care can be coaxed into making more helpful edits to WP. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Does it seem to you that some editors want to stir the pot as opposed to succussing the bottle? ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that. I find it difficult to edit, as I believe the evidence clearly shows that homeopathy doesn't work, but that that fact is disputed. You seem to be approaching differently; in that you seem to believe that the evidence clearly shows that it does work, but you agree that that is disputed. And then we have SA on one side and a few others on the other side who don't want the POV they don't hold in the article at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
One caveat to your statement. Semmelweiss was considered wrong until science caught up. I have practiced Alt-med for 22 years and have seen over 4,000 patients; many of my clinical observations in the 1980s have been confirmed as nutrition science has evolved in particular the work done at the Harvard Public school of health by Walter Willett. I don't know what the future will bring for homeopathy, but my limited experience has surprised me, and the effects both positive and negative go far beyond 30%. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
So lets say I am curious about it. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Me?a Bot? :D

No i'm not a bot. I'm using Huggle to fight vandalism but sometimes make a mistake. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note on homeopathy

I responded to your comment. You may have missed it. Homeopathy is an article about a minority topic. Please point me to policy that says mainstream science should get most of the room in the article? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a minority topic.... It's discussed (generally unfavorably) in mainstream news and science. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure we are on the same page. WP:WEIGHT says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. On such pages, a view may be explicated in great detail, even though it must make sufficient reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not mis-represent the majority viewpoint. Doesn't homeopathy fall under this description of minority? Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. —Whig (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

2008

hi Arthur,

I [see] that you have deleted the reference to World Vegan Day, as non-notable.

While to this point, I am a confirmed carnivore, it seems to me that any event with such an extensive Wikipedia entry and observed by such a well-established organisation could be considered notable.

Your thoughts?

Hal Halibutron (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in the wrong section (#Events, rather than #Holidays), and it's still minor, as holidays/annual commemerations go. The first one might be properly listed (in 1994). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you'd be interested

New section on child sexual abuse talk page - anything to add? Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#Further_reading_and_EL WLU (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Uri Geller (again)!

Hi Arthur. You should probably know better than me, but I fail to see why the video does not violate copyright. The copyright surely belongs to Pro7. Or is there some rule about the length of the excerpt?
What is also interesting to note is that the user name of the person that made that edit is the same as the user name that uploaded the video to YouTube! Surely his nicely done home-made translation subtitles do not free him from the copyright of the underlying video picture. Regards TINYMARK 23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon. As you may assume, I was not logged in when I did that edit. The link I intended to delete was the YouTube video not the Randi video. But I notice you seem to have also undone the reorg. Personally, I think an introduction of more than two sentences is a sign of a badly structured article, and anything after the first paragraph in this article could be placed in other sections. TINYMARK 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

Hi, I don't want to get into that stress filled article, but it is interesting reading. I saw your comment and the wording "small to immeasurable infinitesimal quantities" occurred to me. Ward20 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Beth number

You reverted the addition of an odd bit of trivia on the Beth number article earlier. I left the material out, but added a note on the talk page (Talk:Beth number#Counterfactuals) as it appears that, bizarre as the material was, it may be legit. Of course it may still be unsuited for the article. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Cheers!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Nakon 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "consideration of whether User:Snowfire51 and User:Hereward77 were acting in concert, thereby violating 3RR first. Obviously, I can't bring it up while blocked, and it would clearly be stale when my block expires. (Furthermore, only 3 of the 5 edits are reverts, but I should have started providing reasoning after the first revert, so the edit warring is still improper."

Decline reason: "You still violated 3RR. 3RR does not allow you to get an exception just because someone else is breaking it too. Not how it works. - Revolving Bugbear 00:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC))"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

FWIW, User:Hereward77 lied about my sock. While I was blocked last time, I asked whether I could create the notes that the other account was mine, and I received the word "no", and a sockpuppet warning was placed on my other account. I haven't replaced it with a clean acknowledgment of the identity of accounts yet, and won't do it while blocked.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio)

I'd like to apologize. Things got a bit heated earlier on the Alex Jones (radio) article earlier today, and things kind of escalated in a way I don't think either of us wanted to happen. For what it's worth, I'm not a meatpuppet or sock, and I actually agree with you that he should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, we just differ on how wikipedia should go about it.

I hope there are no hard feelings over this, one look at either of our contributions will show that we both have a history of improving wikipedia. However, I also know you don't have to accept my apologies, and you're well within your rights to tell me to go climb a tree or something else more profane and descriptive. Either way, I just wanted to try and make an effort to clear things up. Sorry again for the way things turned out. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I see the problem. I still don't think that's a reliable source about Jones; in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if there are any reliable sources about him at all. Almost all the references we have are to his web sites or archives of his shows (and I'm not sure whether they're his archives, or an independent archivist, but they don't appear to be even as reliable as the network his show appears on.) I'd appreciate it if you'd retag the source as unreliable; but, even if it were reliable, it doesn't preclude conspiracy theorist appearing in the "known for" field, and it does not support "documentary filmmaker", although it does support some of the other "known for" (which should have been in "occupation").
I would appreciate it if you would retag the source as {{verify credibility}} (of quote); the rest of the article seems at least marginally relevant, even if it's fair and balanced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of tools while blocked

It is not appropriate to use the block tool while blocked. As a technical matter, the tool is available (if it weren't, then a compromised account could block everyone and there would be nothing that could be done) but it is inappropriate to use it for ordinary purposes. --B (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk

I was a bit paranoid after the other night but really I am not wanting to remove my talk history, I'll try and fix the archive and link to it on my talk page. My only real wish has been to have my user page history removed as i identified who and where I am on countless occasions. Sure I have elsewhere on wikipedia butt hat is not big deal, my only concern is that I should have the same right other users do to edit anonymously, by which I mean have no identifying info on my user page or in its history. I have been staying away from AN/I, I hope this message is clear and thanks for a prompt response. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it may be an WP:OVERSIGHT question, as admins can (probably) see the deleted edits with your identity (I haven't checked, which is why I said "probably"), I agree your user page is your own to delete (unless, possibly, you were banned), so that's a reasonable resolution. Sorry about blocking you, but the AN/I comments were just too weird to let go without some action. Suggesting banning User:El C was another option, which I'd rather not take, at this time.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What was your reason for blocking SqueakBox? and what was the block reason all about? I'm sorry, but no undeleting there talk page (without access to the tools to do it) seems completely innapropriate given it is now in his block log for life. The block was completely punative. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The block was about his (and some Admins') mangling of his talk page history, violating GFDL. However, it appears that his talk archive was never actually deleted, just the intermediate moves. I do feel the renaming A>B>C>D, and requesting deletion of B and C, really is a violation requiring some action, even if D is still intact, and they are all within his user talk space. He has an extensive block history, so I don't see that my block really detracts from his reputation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record I never asked for my talk history to be deleted. Not sure about blocking El C, he remains one of the most highly respected admins, IMHO. Anyway, its all sorted now, take care, and good luck with your Spanish. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3 days for 3rr?

That seems pretty draconian. And to think that nearly two years ago I got pummeled for blocking a notorious edit warrior and sock puppeteer for 17 hours!--CSTAR (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? It was a second offense, sort of. I still don't think that source is reliable, although it is (sort-of) verifiable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits for later comment



— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked; but these require some more research. Please do not edit this sections, as it's a scratchpad for future edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A Confusing Revert

Please, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_century&diff=187453272&oldid=187203475 . Note that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were occupied and incorporated in the Soviet Union. Latvian, Lithuanian or Estonian communist states have never existed. It is wrong to tie these countries by any means with communism. I see no reason for a revert like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.126.2 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed that you were just removing information. If the information you were removing was wrong, that's different. There's a lot of vandalism on 21st century, as it's both {{current}} and potentially huge. Please feel free to correct it, provided you note the problem in the edit summary field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusing the truth

Hi Arthur,

I am tired of User:Abuse truth. I asked not to revert but to discuss in talk:Indictment: The McMartin Trial and he reverted nonetheless and merely posted the same nonsense in that talk he had posted in a previous edit summary.

I will leave an identical note to Richard A. Norton. What can be done with this behavior? I mean it. How is it possible that as to date the WP community has been unable to ban this blatant pov pushing of the most grotesque conspiracy theories with no disciplinary action whatsoever?

—Cesar Tort 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a user conduct WP:RfC? I don't hold hope that anything would come of it, othet than all but 1 editor believes his edits are uniformly in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (although 2 respected editors think they sometimes provide a grain of evidence which can be fixed up later), and even that editor believes that his failure to discuss before his 3rd addition of censored material is not helpful, but a worthless RfC seems necessary for an WP:RfAr. However, please read the guidelines for RfC carefully. A failed RfC (certification not met) would tend to credit his actions. My actions haven't been beyond reproach, but I still think his clear misstatement of the content of online sources (I have no idea whether he's misstated the content of sources I haven't read), addition of sources relevant only to a related topic, and addition of sources of questionable reliability and bias and removal of clearly reliable (although biased) sources, and failure to discuss such changes until his third attempt to change the article, strikes me as grounds for discussion. I suppose addition of material related to the accuracy of a documentary might be allowable, but it hasn't been allowed in Loose Change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm not sure the #Film chapters section is encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeap! You can remove it if you like :) Cesar Tort 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

guidelines for the naming of articles

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I didn't say that. If no reliable source calls it X, then we can't call it X, as that would be WP:OR in the name. If the primary name used by reliable sources is pejorative (about which, by the way, I disagree in this case), we may use what some secondary reliable sources call it, instead. I'm not sure what we do if all sources call something by a pejorative name. I suppose we'd have to use it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Erdos

Basically, he's within the scope of WP:EDUCATION because hes in a subcategory of Category:Education, probably Category:Hungarian mathematicians or Category:Calculating prodigies. If you want, you can remove the project tag, im too fussed either way. Twenty Years 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

about the double-standard way of describing people in calendar pages

we dont list what they are famous for ? then why it is done for politicians and guitarists? it is listed what was the post of a politician which is clearly what he/she is famous for and it is also listed which music bands a guitarist were a member of. not mentioning what people are famous for in this case just shows a double-standard in doing calendar pages. I do not revert them unless you give me reasons. I dont know why we must descriminate in favour of politicians and Guitarists. if this man is the 16th president of united states, that man is also the 1st man who observed red blood cells. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring it up in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Days of the Year. It's the current convention that Presidents, royalty, nobel laureates, and musicians are further identified. I'll continue to revert your additions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


so there is a double-standard in favour of those 4 groups of people. bad for scientists and filmmakers :D . okey, I act according to current convention. but as you may know it is not the current convention of for example "today in history" websites. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of dropping the musicians, myself. Does that help? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


no ! :D
give artists a chance. musicians are the only artists among them. + you forgot to mention athletes. important medals are listed for them. anyway, I took a look at all archives of the page you mentioned, i mean the wikiproject Days of the year Talk page. I had read the article page of it yesterday. if the goal is to keep Wikicalendar pages most clean and tidy and well-shaped then it is better to follow the current convention you mentioned. thats a trade-off between fast access to the main datas and having a clean page.Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:On RM

A tag has been placed on Template:On RM requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts such as to Palomar Observatory

Please stop reverting helpful additions. Please step back and consider whether you are reverting these changes for the benefit of Wikipedia, or to win an arguement. I have tried to make articles more relevant to a global readership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk • contribs) 16:17, January 6, 2008

Hi Arthur, I agree with 86.147.253.126. You reverted a change I added as a violation of neutral point of view, but you provided no help whatsoever on how this edit violates NPOV. If you look at the talk pages, you'll see that I had already asked for feedback on NPOV questions. Dscotese (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Day care sex abuse hysteria and McMartin preschool trial

Hi Arthur. I have revertedboth your earlier reverts of User:Crum375 as those changes were made by a decidedly banned editor. Crum was reverting these edits per policy as banned editors have no right to edit WP. If you wish to stand by these changes, please be aware of the situation and clarify that you are standing by these edits in your own right and not supporting a banned editor. Thanks - Alison ❤ 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do stand by the edits, regardless of whether truthy is a banned editor, for which I see no evidence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The evidence is checkuser evidence, and I cannot reveal it per privacy policy. Email me and I'll provide what details I can under the rules - Alison ❤ 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll get back to deciding which parts of the edit I believe to be clearly independently justified, probably tomorrow. He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
"He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions" — you may want to double-check that. Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned users are banned, period. If you restore their edits you are violating the ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is wrong. restoring their edits mean you take responsiblility for them. Otherwise,a banned user could prevent insertion of correct information in an article by inserting it themselves. In this case, the McMartin edits made the article better than it was, and the merge request had previously closed in the other article. However, I'll check the other edits in detail and verify their correctness before I reinsert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1st Year of Millenia

umm dude, most people recognize 2000 as the 1st year of the current millenium, meaning that 3000 is beginning of next millenium, 1000 is beginning of 2nd millenium, etc. though if we were to be looking at this mathematically, you would be correct. however, due to wide recognition of 2000 as the first year, we could just say the 1st century was an oddball and only had 99 years. since i respect other people's opinions, i won't keep changing the year range on the millenia/century pages. thanks for listening. --66.94.154.5 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia convention, and the common perception in most centuries before the 21st, was that centuries and millennia include the 00/000 year at the end. If you disagree, please get a consensus for change in Talk:Millennium before you attempt to change the articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The book of Hungarian orthography not being a source

Hi! Why do you think that the book of the Hungarian spelling rules, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1984 does not count as a source? Is there some criteria about the source having to be in English? – Kdano (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A wikipedia article is not a source. The organisation might be, but we only have the editor's word on that. You need a publication by that organization, even if only on paper, and even if only in the Hungarian language. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A magyar helyesírás szabályai (The Rules of the Hungarian Spelling) is a publication. It's a book. The author is the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA). And this book has been uploaded to the Hungarian Wikisource. I just thought it would be useful if I attached a link to the online version of the book. – Kdano (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You quoted the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as the source, rather than the publication (or at least, that's all I saw as the link). As I don't speak Magyar, I can't comment further. As far as I'm considered, the Hungarian Wikisource qualifies at least as a courtesy URL (an unofficial, but credible, copy of the source). If you like, we can work out the proper citation format so that it's clear to all exactly what the source is. Perhaps the source should be:
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. "Egyéb tudnivalók", A magyar helyesírás szabályai (courtesy copy) (in Magyar). 
You may add other fields from {{cite book}}, but that should make it clear what we're talking about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

wp:bio

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to confirm the problem with the page I set up. I read through the reasons for the deletion, wp:bio, and the only thing I can come up with is the nobility. So what your saying is that because this person has no published material he is not allowed to have a page? Is there anything I can do to get this page up, i.e., removed his birth date, remove that he is a philosopher? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Giveuspeace (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there's just nothing published about him. If he had published, even if he then disclaimed copyright, and those publications were discussed in WP:RS, then he could have an article. If there were discussion about him in WP:RS, then he probably should have an article. But there's no "there" there. The general "rule" on Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". There's nothing verifiable (as we define verifiable) about him.
Prove me wrong. If you can find something to convince me that I'm wrong about him, I'll help you keep the article up (I won't help you much in writing it, but....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks

Hi Arthur,

I appreciate the quick response, I fully understand now. This person though, as I mentioned in my talk, doesn't have any published material, because he doesn't believe in making money from his creative works. So I will contact him and find out if he has any articles discussing him or any groups he has been involved with. Again, thx for the clear response.

Giveuspeace (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

Mr. Chamish is not an "anti-Semite". He sacrificed his career to expose the criminal operation to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. If you are really Jewish you would be more concerned by the fact that Mr. Pipes and his fellow Trotskyoid Neocon Bolshevik friends are hanging out in the CFR with the likes of James A. Baker III, an open enemy of Israel. Instead, you choose to promote Mr. Pipes' smears against an honest and patriotic Jew. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Pipes' commentary on Mr. Chamish appears to be as credible as Mr. Chamish's commentary on associates of Mr. Pipes, at least as far as the references you've used indicate. And I'm not sure I see the relevance of either. You're welcome to add a an {{irrel}} tag to Mr. Pipes commentary, but removal of the tag I added seems to be vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

also nomination ?

They pop up faster than you nominate them: Category:Mechanical energy gearing (see [9]). --VanBurenen (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the gearing should be a separate issue, myself. That actually seems a reasonable topic, although not under that name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake

Just FYI - I painstaking spent time on a list of lakes to go through and move articles from French, Italian, Spanish, German, and Dutch to proper English titles... and that was the only article which User Docu seemed to want to claim ownership on and revert. Rarelibra (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But thank you for addressing the issue. Rarelibra (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about deleting the evidence of User:Docu's misdeeds, but I was reverting multiple copy/paste moves back and forth. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this renaming dispute. It is sad that a "convention" consisting of two short sentences (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words) is used as a battle axe to wreak havoc in carefully edited articles. Some names that User:Rarelibra has invented for the titles of various articles are really quite silly if not ridiculous, and are just meant for the wikipedia world. And he did not consistently translate the names of lakes in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland (see List_of_lakes). I did put the question to him why not. In my opinion it is a mess now. The names were carefully edited and consistent across many articles up till now. The English language wikipedia is not just for the countries where English is spoken as a first language, it is the one wikipedia that crosses all borders of international communication and, therefore, needs to be more careful in its dealing with naming conventions. Even the large German wikipedia, considered in many cases qualitative better than the English version, but for a much smaller German speaking audience, uses for titles the names that are used locally. The National Geographic Atlas of the World uses local names as well. Using the "google count" as measure for naming an article would be much more logical. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

Would you move Lake of Gruyère back to where it was and let people discuss the change on talk first? It's highly unusual to do it without inviting other editors to comment first.

BTW, would you detail what you mean with "Docu's misdeeds" (previous section of this page)? Fixing copy-and-paste moves is surely not a misdeed, -- User:Docu

No, fixing copy/paste moves isn't the misdeed, which I corrected in the ANI section. Moving it from Lake to Lac was the misdeed, per Wikipedia naming guidelines. (Furthermore, I think I removed the block to moving it back, although I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to moves.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In the article's history, you will find that Darwinek created it with the title "Lac de la Gruyère" [10], not "Lake of la Gruyère", "Lake de la Gruyère", "Lake Greyerzer", "GreyerzerLake", etc. Such moves need to be considered carefully, otherwise we will end up with articles like Artificial lake Mooserboden (probably based on de:Stausee Mooserboden). Looking at rare's pagemove log, I doubt this is being done. -- User:Docu

Would you please move Lake of Gruyère back to Lac de la Gruyère until a move discussion has taken place? -- User:Docu

WP:BOLLOCKS

Hi Arthur,

RE: the basis of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory The basis of the conspiracy might be bollocks, but the section is in the article for a reason, and so the basis of the conspiracy should be there so that readers can check the sources. Do you think there is a different basis for the conspiracy theory, or do you think that the conspiracy theory's basis should be left out of the section dedicated to it? I don't understand. Note that I did not claim the basis to be accurate, I merely provided references to it. No one has questioned Keith Eaton's credibility or that of the structural engineer Dscotese (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe the conspiracy theory's basis should be left out of Collapse of the World Trade Center, especially since there's no source that that is the basis. The the structural engineer article is clearly not reliable for the question of what the basis might be. Perhaps it should be in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, but I'm really not convinced that an engineering journal whose name is not in standard title case (i.e., the Structural Engineer) can be a credible engineering journal. But that could be your error, rather than that of the journal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to look at the webpage for the journal and see how they use letter case. "New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster" (September 3, 2002). the structural engineer 80: 6.  It's also pretty easy to read Steven Jones' paper and decide for yourself what is the basis for the hypothesis. Are we supposed to assume that readers are just too stupid to make these simple connections upon reading the sources? If you've read it, and disagree, what would you say is the basis? If not, I'd recommend it.
The British have different titling conventions, so I probably should withdraw that part of my comment. I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing. As for basis, different conspiracy theorists undoubtably have different (basises? bases?) for their beliefs. We would certainly need a mainstream reliable source as to what the basis for the conspiracy theories might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing." - I don't think you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source should have any effect on that editor's decision about whether to let stand a contribution that another editor has made. The point behind providing sources is to allow the reader to make his own judgment. So I suspect you'll withdraw that argument too. That leaves me with the explanation that a mainstream source would have to make the claim that the molten metal is foundational to the controlled demolition hypothesis. But this puts an undue burden on contributors to WP: rather than enforcing "No original research," you are enforcing "mainstream research only," which cuts away a vast amount of knowledge. You are making it difficult for me to assume good faith on your part. Should I give up? Dscotese (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I found Jones's papers unconvincing to the point that they make me question the credibility of the journal they're contained in. In fact, I find the claim of any review (not to mention peer review) incredible, for the papers that I've read. If you wish to point me to one of his papers which survives basic arithmetic checking, I may reconsider. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa dude, so do you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source justifies that editor's decision *to delete* a contribution that another editor has made? I've actually never read a Steven Jones paper in a journal. What journal did you look at? What basic arithmetic checking did it fail? And also, you didn't address the question of original research versus mainstream research.Dscotese (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The question of whether a source is reliable is based on editor discretion; if a journal contains too many articles with clear misstatements of fact, it cannot be considered reliable, even if (claimed to be) peer reviewed. In the case of Jones' articles in J911S, they have sufficient arithmetic errors to confirm that J911S is not reliable. "Unconvincing" was the wrong word; "containing clear misstatements of fact" is closer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have sources to back up your claim that Jones' paper contains arithmetic errors? Or do you rely on the reader's ability to do math? I can do math too, but I would need to know what calculations you refer to in order to verify that he's in error. Also, J911S doesn't mean much to me. Can you explain what you're talking about when you use that code? Dscotese (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
J911S = Journal of 911 studies at http://journalof911studies.com/ . As for the arithmetic errors, there's a "mainstream" 911 newsletter, which has a least the same reliablility status and verifies that the "free fall" time is considerably less than Jones claims, and which formulas can be verified at least to academic standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, feel free to point out the discrepancy between the "mainstream" "free fall time" and that presented in a Jones paper at J911S (as long as you can show that both are talking about the same thing) in the appropriate sections of WP. However, please refrain from using it to reject good information about the evidence that served to help create the controlled demolition hypothesis. Dscotese (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I only need to point out the errors if they were to be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued reverting at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

By what standard do you remove what I added--well, actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it--yet leave the other external links untouched? Certainly the discussions presented in the journal are of at least as high quality as those still remaining.

Simply to announce as "pathetic" and "laughable" all the submissions available for view at http://journalof911studies.com/ does not make them so. Apostle12 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just referenced the "Truther" article, of which I was unaware prior to your mention of it. Thank you. This article does indeed explore the matter of rational questioning of the official version of events regarding 9/11.

What I wonder, though, is why these are two separate articles? And why does the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article make no mention of the "Truther" article? It seems to me these two articles should be cross-referenced in some manner, or even combined, since they deal with the same subject matter.

Regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies, I wonder if you have reviewed the following article:

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

It is difficult for me to dismiss the arguments this article contains. Apostle12 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling apologize

I discovered that I have misspelled your first name (Author instead of Arthur) in the discussion User_talk:Glenn#Category:Energy_control. That has now been corrected and I apologize for the misspelling. It was not meant as a offense. --Glenn (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There being no consensus, MfD result, or reason given for deleting the debate, merging.

Bet you this won't stick. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But the result was "redirect", which does not exclude a merge. I won't edit war over it, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "Redirect" does not mean "Merge". Otherwise it would say "Merge and Redirect". Black Kite 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been disputes about that before, as well. There are also more complicated possible results, such as delete and redirect, or merge and delete (i.e. move to random-space) the redirect. But I don't see any reason given for removing (rather than archiving) the material. If it were an "attack page", then so would the previous comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian style shoe

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for clarifying my close on the AfD above. I tend to err on the side of verboseness when doing closes in order to minimize the chance that they'll be challenged based solely on my status as a non-admin by a user unhappy with the outcome--since I've seen a number of closes noting cleanup, I just followed the pattern there.

I see what you're saying about any such consensus being hypothetical, though, and I'll avoid it in the future. Thanks for the lesson! --jonny-mt 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Actually, as no one else !voted delete (or equivalent, delete and salt, delete and block article creator, etc.) and I withdrew the nomination, a speedy close as withdrawn would be quite acceptable, even from a non-admin. I didn't feel comfortable doing it myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I read your second comment as a change in opinion rather than an explicit withdrawal of the nomination, and so I based the final call on the consensus of the discussion. Ah, well; glad it's all sorted out now :) --jonny-mt 04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration, Good

Thanx...yes, your word "reported" is a good compromise to this situation (better than my word "found"). Thanx DanaUllmanTalk 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I just posted something that deserves your attention at: [11]. Nothing serious, but just wanting to clear up your attack on the Linde (1994) paper. Can you acknowledge your (minor) mistake so that we can move on... DanaUllmanTalk 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

can you tell me how to get the pro cannabis userbox on my userpage i can't figure out how to do it thnx Potheadpoet (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Arthur Rubin/User pro-cannabis}} — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that Potheadpoet (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Venetian style shoe.

I trust you understand the removal of references appears to contradict the foundation of Wikipedia's fundamental rules regarding WP:V. Perhaps this is something you should bring up with at verifiability rules because nothing in the rules stipulates that it is necessary to exclude "dictionaries" and encyclopedic references. In fact, the threshold for inclusion according to WP:V is verifiability which "means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Currently you have removed many references from the article Venetian Style Shoe. Furthermore you have removed much relevant information. On top of that, the references you removed supported much of the information that was or is currently in the article. One example is the Microsoft 2007 reference which referred to the "loafer" as being from the 20th century. You removed this reference and on top of that you then requested that a reference be supplied. I would like to caution you that this may be seen as being disruptive. I trust we will communicate some more on the talk page so we can build a "proper" WP:consensus... hence avoiding edit conflicts as well as "comments" left within edit summaries and respecting Wikipedia's fundamental rules such as WP:V! Thank You --CyclePat (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(Other) encyclopedias should rarely be included as references. I suspect a scholarly fashion reference, or even a notable fashion (history) magazine, could source the information, if relevant. Dictionaries should almost never be included, although the etymology would be interesting if non-trivial. This etymology seems trivial. I'm trying to note that certain things you've included should not be there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This site seems not to be notable even within the "truth movement")

Please see Talk. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a MAN

From a man that you will recognize...

This is the main difference between you and; the other, between En.WP and an other WP!! you may hope what do you want, but just behave honestly as you do ... I stand up in front of you, then I lean foreward, as a sign of respect, gratefulness and real admiration for your HUMAN dimension... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.163 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Epic Barnstar
For your contribution to the year articles Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hey there Arthur.


Would you please reivew [[12]] and let me know where you believe this edit [[13]] falls under that "guideline" (don't think it is technically a guideline? Sethie (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's technically a guideline, either. I think your edit (IMHO) violated WP:LEAD, and the "guidelines" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. On controversial articles, I use the "minor" flag intentionally to indicate reversions of edits made against clear consensus, which don't qualify under 3RR. But I was just running on year patrol, and most of the random edits on future and present years are just wrong. Perhaps that one should stay, though. I won't revert if you reinsert it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It's nice to know where you were coming from.
I have opened a dialogue on the talk page of 2012 to see what others think.
You of course must and will use the minor tab as you see fit, though given the "guideline" :) I wouldn't feel good using it the way you describe. Sethie (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding

Dear friend: You made a change in Boubaker Polynomials page, If you are an administrator; we respect your decision in respect to EN.WP without any discussion; BUT : If you are a simple user, please express your objection in the discussion page, don't act as a part&Judge. faitfully K71811418 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ...

It's quite simple. Search results and self-published material is not allowed on article pages, although they can be discussed in order to find reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

attributing

Hello Arthur Rubin/Archive 2008,

I think we need to discuss the claim on the talk page, this is turning into edit warring, I'm afraid.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

survivor vs. victim

I'm conflicted about your insistence that "survivor" is POV with respect to the "child sexual abuse" article. I'm certain that I come from a biased point of view on this myself, and having worked with many survivors (in describing this in this note, I admit bias) of different forms of abuse I certainly am used to that language, which has those connotations.

And yet, I wonder if it is really so different than this?

"In collapsed buildings that did not catch fire, rescue teams searched the fallen buildings thoroughly, pulling out various survivors from underneath splintered wood and other debris.

(from the current edit of the article on the Loma Prieta earthquake.) Certainly "survivors" here expresses a point of view in addition to noting that it is talking about folks who remain alive after an event.)

Or this?

"Eliezer Wiesel on September 30, 1928)[1] is a Hungarian-French-Jewish novelist, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor." (from Elie_Wiesel)

I don't believe either of those latter statements is particularly POV, I remain conflicted about the example in "Child Sexual Abuse" but actually don't have a fundamental argument why I'm conflicted about the first and clear on the second and third. It seems "victims who survived" would be a reasonable substitute in all three cases, and offer to *me* the same meaning that "survivor" does. Perhaps you could enlighten me in explaining (and I looked on the talk page, but didn't see your comment there), what your rationale is? --Joe Decker (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In the child abuse "field", "survivor" seems to be generally used as a buzz-word, leaving it ambiguous as to whether any abuse actually occured. "Victim" has no such confusion, but seems not to be generally accepted by social workers, as it presupposes the person is damaged beyond repair. Perhaps a neutral term can be found.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tetration#Approaches to inverse functions

What is WRONG?

y = x^x

inverse is:

x = y^y

y = x^(1/y)

y = x^(1/x^(1/y))

…

y = x^(1/x^(1/x^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^(1/x)^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^^∞

y = (1/(1/x)) ^ (1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^(1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^^(∞+1)

y = 1/(1/x)^^ ∞.

Cʘʅʃʘɔ (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exact in any sense, but it does seem to be correct, combining the last equation of #Extension to infinite heights with the representation of ssrt here. The domains of definition may be different, though. I think it's non-trivial enough to need a reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

3RR does not apply to vandalism, which to me would include the adding of a copyrighted image.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the adding a copyrighted image does not constitute vandalism, as a fair use claim was made by the uploader, and clarified by me. If you own the copyright of the image, you may request the WikiMedia Foundation remove it under the DMCA. Otherwise, only WP:BLP might make the image vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I advise that both of you follow the dispute resolution page. Edit warring isn't going to solve this dispute, it'll only escalate it. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of L33t-Geek

You blocked L33t-Geek (talk · contribs) for abusing sockpuppet accounts. They are currently requesting an unblock. Since you did not say which account is the sock-master, it is hard to assess the evidence that this account is a sockpuppet of a blocked account. Could you provide evidence on that user's talk page or provide a link to the master account so that I may respond intelligently to his/her unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an unblock, but I was blocked, I believe, for edit warring on Kent Hovind, and the newly created account which was blocked for being created by a blocked IP (for edit warring there, an image, and a couple of user talk pages), was unblocked. I considered, and still consider, the edits to the image to be vandalism, and the removal of the image from the article to be minor vandalism, so it should not be subject to 3RR or other edit warring limitations, but should be reverted on sight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The block appears to be based on you engaging in an edit war with an IP editor about whether an image should be included in an article.

Even though the IP appeared to be mistaken in labeling the image as copyvio - it is correctly tagged as fair use - this is, in substance, a content dispute, and not a matter of reverting vandalism. Per WP:VAND, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided. The charge that the image is in violation of copyright is unfounded, but it is not frivolous. The removal of the image, therefore, was not vandalism and your reversions were not exempt from the prohibition of edit warring.

In this situation, it would have been more appropriate to engage in dispute resolution instead of engaging in an edit war. While I would not have performed your block myself, it is not contrary to policy and I may not, therefore, unilaterally lift it. Please try to come to an understanding with the blocking admin via e-mail. — Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Second amendment mediation

Just a heads up, a topic which you were involved in[14] is undergoing mediation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, you may want to participate, or add to your watch list, etc.. In any case, I value your opinion on this. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

How can you use anti-christian websites as reliable sources for an article about a christian, thos tags belong.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. They're reliable as to his views. The video, unless you claim it's a fake, would be reliable even if on a specifically anti-Hovind web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

Hi, please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Bleriot 100th 2009

the Bleriot flight of July 25 1909 will be celebrated by most of Europe for it's 100th anniversay on July 25 2009. I dare say you are not privy to the history of Bleriot's crossing of the English Channel. If you would like some information on Bleriot's flight and it's ramification in the world let me know. Thanks. Kopimek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a a cite for present plans for the future celebration. I believe you, but Wikipedia doesn't run on belief, but on WP:RS. For what it's worth, I've be removing the tricentennial celebrations in 2076 from 2070s as well, please don't think I'm US-centric, although I am in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re:WP:Copyright

WRONG. The material may have been posted by the copyright holder

Your going to assume it is was may have been uploaded by him? It is long established that Google Videos illegally hosts copyrighted vidoes like YouTube, etc. From WP:Copyright:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work

You said it yourself, it may be this individual posting it himself, but do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that he even approved that video being there? Wikipedia has long considered it better to remove links to videos like this when in doubt, not to ignore it and hope that the copyright holder doesn't find out and complains. — Κaiba 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof evidence he didn't upload it himself. It's quite plausible that he would do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. You have to have evidence that it isn't a copyright violation, not evidence that it isn't. So do you? Links to copyrighted videos from YouTube and Google Videos are removed all the time if we have no evidence that the copyright holder granted permission to use it. Google Videos violates copyrights, and the only way to link to copyrighted videos from there is if permission was given from the copyright holder. Again, Wikipedia removes links when in doubt, and we don't keep it if we have no evidence to prove it wasn't. Even if it is possible that he did it, do you have anything to suggest he did? If not, I am removing it again. — Κaiba 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Wikipedia does NOT remove links when in doubt, and there's no reason to remove this link, except google video seems to have already removed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to message

It seems to be a bug in VP. I noticed someone else posted it on the bug tracker. Supposedly it's been fixed in 1.3.8. I haven't had a chance to try it yet. --Phoenix Hacker (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Decades

Hello! I see that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. How do you think, can decade (0s) consist of nine years?! I suppose that it is nonsense and WP:CFORK. If this was a convention, can you indicate the source of that idea? Thanks.--ChroniclerSPb (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

dispute in psychohistory

Hi Arthur,

Although I have almost two years editing in WP I still have not used formally the dispute resolution process (I've only discussed a lot in talk pages though).

I've a question. I don't know how to deal with User:Ishmaelblues in psychohistory. The last couple of days I've tried many times to engage him in talk page but he only reverts without good reason (in his last post he only says that my removals of his blatant pov about a living person were "vandalism").

To boot, because of misspelling, one of his footnotes (I believe it's #26) has corrupted the page and he continues to revert even after I called his attention twice to this problem (so the article looks corrupted below that footnote).

Besides discussing in psychohistory talk page, I 'd like to know which is the second step in the dispute resolution process: to ask a third-party opinion? I already tried to communicate with User:Ishmaelblues in his user talk page as well, to no avail.

I know you are very busy in WP but I'd appreciate at least some of your attention in that article.

—Cesar Tort 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I patched the ref tag. As I'm going on a short Wikibreak this weekend (at least 10 am March 7 PST (UTC-8) through 5 pm March 10 PDT (UTC-7), with only occassional access, I can't really mediate at this time. If everything is as you say, an active editor will be needed. I'll look at it again when I get back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! —Cesar Tort 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are back tomorrow, please just take a look at Talk:Psychohistory#Burden_of_evidence and give me your advice here, if you don't have time to engage with that editor. —Cesar Tort 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi you reverted me without discussion -see Homeopathy. Do you see it now?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507-- Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.270.107.246.88 (talk)

--70.107.246.88 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. The paper has enough lies to consider the journal it appears in as non-reliable. Homeopathic "remedies" are not regulated as drugs in the US. They are even less regulated than dietary supplements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Now we must agree right?--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we must agree that you're banned from the article. I don't see what else we agree on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are honnest with yourself you might choose to see it.Best. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mihaela Mitrache article

Hi Arthur! This was my intention, to start translate the ro page. The Bucharest National Theatre is the most important Theatre in Romania, the best Romanian actors are playing on its stage; additionally, MM had roles in Romanian and co-production movies ("Milky - Way"), she also received nominations in some internaitonal movies. I hope that in a short while I will be able to fully translate the page, but as I am a new ocntributor to wikipedia, I might be somehow clumpsy in editing this article, so I would really appreciate any help. Thanx! (Ana-Maria Miron (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Golden ratio

I don't see the need for the project. But I'm not participating, so I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
On what basis? What's your relation with the topic? Phidias, Leonardo da Vinci and Le Corbusier (to mention a few), men that are among the most pivotal designers in history, saw the need to use it at least in their most prominent work. I can't see how a project to tie all the articles dedicated to the object of their studies is not necesary. Also: the designers of the pyramid of giza, of stonehenge, of notre dame, venus the milo, etc.--20-dude (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a mathematisian or something, so I already figured you relation. The relevance of the golden ratio from the Math porin of view migh not be bigger than the relevance of π, perhaps is more trascendental from the designing point of view.--20-dude (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album

Hi there, Arthur. We may disagree on certain content, but I appreciator your rigor, and I appreciate fellow editors who are transparent. Cool. As for Arsenicum, my concern in one of my recent edits (that you UNDID) was that none of the references cited for the skepticism of homeopathy make reference to any of the research testing Arsenicum album. In other words, this article discusses several basic science and clinical trials that show positive effects from THIS homeopathic medicine, while the comment that you are seeking to protect is that overall skepticism for the broad field of homeopathy. How can we say this better than we do at present?

On a second subject, I noticed that you stated above that homeopathic medicines are not regulated as "drugs." Actually, this is not true. In the U.S., they are regulated as drugs, primarily as "over-the-counter drugs." And just so that you will know, American manufacturers of homeopathic medicines are regularly visited by representatives of the FDA (unannounced). As for labelling issues, no homeopathic medicine can be labeled for the treatment of any condition other than an "OTC ailment," that is, one that is self-limited, that doesn't require medical diagnosis, and that doesn't require medical monitoring. DanaUllmanTalk 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to my latest reversion on AA, I think "homeopathy is not considered effective medicine" is more accurate than "... remains skeptical of homeopathic medicine", as well as more accurately reflecting the sources.
On the second subject, I thought over-the-counter drugs required proof of safety (OK, I'll grant that), and evidence of effectiveness for some condition. If I'm wrong, I apologize. It should also be noted that, in a now-long-archived revision of one of the relevant talk pages, it was noted that one "manufacturer" of homeopathic medications was just shaking the diluent. No one noticed until they admitted it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the nationality of the manufacturer. If it was American, that suggests that FDA visits are not as frequent as required. But, I suppose, the same could be said for prescription medications.
As a further aside, I have doubts that acetaminophen should be an over-the-counter drug, as the ratio between the recommended dose and the probably harmful dose is only a factor of 2, according to our article. (I thought it was 4. Learn something new every day.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Legally (in the U.S.), homeopathic medicines are primarily OTC drugs (there are, however, some homeopathic medicines, even in high potencies, to be Rx drugs because they are only used to treat people with serious and/or chronic illness, thereby having no indications for the treatment of self-limiting conditions). The Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 gave homeopathic medicines their legal recognition, and later (around 1968), they were deemed OTC drugs. The "Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US" is recognized by the FDA as an official compendium of drugs, and certain homeopathic texts (called "materia medica") are recognized by the FDA as having reliable information in them that allows drug manufacturers to market homeopathic ingredients for those OTC indications that these ingredients are known to cause. I have followed historical and present-day legal proceedings against homeopathic manufacturers, and I have never heard of the case you cite above, though, as always, I am open to be educated. If you ever find out details, I'd like to hear about it. I know one leading skeptic of homeopathy who likes to make reference to a homeopathic manufacturer who at least once was found to put conventional drugs in his homeopathic medicines, but he tends to forget mentioning that this single occurrence happened in Pakistan in the 1970s.
As for Arsenicum album, my point is that the "scientific community" may be skeptical of homeopathy, but I do not know of specific skepticism of homeopathic Arsenicum album. Because this article shows that there are several animal and human trials published in reliable sources, we need to add something more to what is presently written. DanaUllmanTalk 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Looking for your comments on the Bilingual Education page

There is a discussion on your two reverts of information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bilingual_education#Reversion_of_material_twice_on_page abuse t (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SRA

Hi Arthur,

Biao has just reverted again in Satanic ritual abuse. I will soon unwatch this article since I am pretty busy. Anyway, thanks for your work in that page.

Cesar Tort 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accidental mistake in Homeopathic Arsenicum

Arthur...slow down, you move too fast. I AGF, but please note you got confused between Linde's writings in 2005 about his meta-analysis about clinical research that was published in the Lancet in 1997. He did NOT write about the meta-analysis he and others did in 1994 on environmental toxicology. Heck, we all make mistakes. That said, you need to read (or re-read what Linde wrote in 2005 about his clinical meta-analysis because you and some other editors tend to either mis-quote it or not describe it accurately. DanaUllmanTalk 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Labor Day

I've responded to your revert here. Cheers, Murderbike (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. βcommand 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of my talk page noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur. I'm going state this very simply, so I hope you take it to heart. I came here to talk to you about your deletion of Beta's opt-out list. I see Beta has jokingly put a template on your talk page. Heh. Your deletion of his page was an abuse of your admin tools. So, if I were you, I wouldn't be calling his template on your talk page vandalism. Doing so is hypocritical and also will to draw more attention to your abuse of your tools, which is a much bigger deal. And it seems obvious to me he was just being funny while being informative, as he did in fact revert your edits which could be viewed as administrative vandalism. And, just as a little extra justification, how about we just say Beta dropped the template per IAR. Set the example. :) Lara❤Love 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. That page, together with assertion that this is an attempt to meet {{bot}} guidelines, is a policy violation, whether or not it's a template. I won't wheel-war, but I'll pursue deletion procedures. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not stated as an attempt to meet the bot guideline. That's an optional guideline that he's already stated repeatedly he will not comply with. And WHAT POLICY? You can't just say "it violates policy". You have two MFDs and you, an admin, can't even grasp the fact that you need to cite the violated policy. You've been blocked three times this year for edit warring (and we're only 2 and a half months in) and you've abused your admin powers in all this BC mess. You need to reevaluate your position in all of this. And you need to back away from the admin tools while you do it. Lara❤Love 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It was asserted that it is a credible alternative to {{bot}}. That assertion is just incredible and unconscionable. WP:NOT#CENSORED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, Arthur, I was just popping by here, from the MfD, to ask you about the same as Lara just had (re: what policy?). I think I see what you're trying to get at now, but, I thought I'd mention something. {{nobots}}/{{bots}} isn't a policy, nor a guideline. They're just templates. Templates that most bots don't even pay any attention to at all. Anyhow, have a nice day, SQLQuery me! 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
What does NOT#CENSORED have to do with anything? Are you serious? We ask for a policy and you just pull out a random one that in no way even remotely applies? It was asserted to be the sole alternative. If you don't like it, it doesn't really matter, as he's not required to provide a community approved opt-out. In fact, he's not required to provide any opt-out. Lara❤Love 18:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's unconscionable to request that an editor not complain about the bot in order to not receive messages from it. Discrediting or refusing to accept complaints about specfic bot actions of which the user declined notfication is questionable, but within the bounds of common sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you possibly an admin when you don't even know policy? You're deleting pages per IAR, citing the wrong criteria, in a rogue fashion. You're warning users for violating policies that they're not breaking. Granted your block log is proof you don't understand WP:3RR but this is your final warning to stop using your admin tools (including warning others) in this matter because you clearly don't have a grasp on it. And further abuse and I'll be bringing your actions to the attention of the community for greater scrutiny. Lara❤Love 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a proposal which would be a clear violation of policy and law, if left intact. WP:IAR is made exactly for this sort of problem, although I should have marked it as proposal and protected the text {{proposal}}, and left the rest open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things, then I'm off to AN/I and will no longer discuss this with you. You have yet to name what policy it violates, even in the MFD and now you're saying it breaks a law? You've lost me. I am utterly without response to that. Lara❤Love 19:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive administrative action.

Hello, Arthur.

I'm sorry, but I feel obliged to block you until your actions have been given scrutiny by a wider community of administrators. You have been using your admin tools in an obvious dispute with an editor, and without support of policy or even guidelines to back them up.

At this point, I feel that you are disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, and what's worse, misusing the tools the community have trusted you with to do so.

Please keep an eye on AN/I; I will gladly forward any notice you leave on your talk page for that purpose to the thread where your recent behavior will be discussed so that you make make a case. — Coren (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|what admin tools have I used? Rollback is no longer an admin tool.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

An urgent block over one questionable admin action wasn't needed, comments are welcome at WP:ANI#Admin blocked because of questionable use of admin tools; needs review.

Please abstain from using your mop in relation to bot exclusion pages until the conflict is resolved, though. Just a friendly suggestion.

Request handled by: MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion. — Coren (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I think it is very bad form for the blocking admin to handle the unblock request. Coren we need evidence A.S.A.P. on the AN/I as to why you chose to block here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I mostly meant to answer a direct question. Faux pas fixed. — Coren (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


{{unblock|My actions were not disruptive (any more than the unconscionable "contract"), nor were they intended as a WP:POINT. I should have added {{proposal}} and MfD'd, rather than deleting under a speedy, but "content harmful to Wikipedia" seems to fit if allowed as a page for signatures. See below for a comment to be forwarded to the AN/I thread.}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have deactivated this request - it looks like you are unblocked and presumably you are not affected by an autoblock since you are an admin. --B (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment for AN/I page.

Just checking the edit history of the MfD. User:Carcharoth explained a policy violation there (diff). If I'd thought of that, I would have said it, but I could just see that it's an unconscionable and possibly illegal "contract". Copying, as well as producing the diff.

Quoting from this page version (the text has since been removed): "Keep in mind that when you sign this list, you fully are aware that you lose the right to [...] You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." - here the generalised (not the specific) right to complain is not something that can be signed away. We can have a semantic argument over whether we mean complain or criticise, but Wikipedia is a co-operative and collaborative editing environment. Wording such as this, however "voluntary" it is, does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, because it restricts the possibilities for discussing the bots and what they do. It promotes an environment where bot operators WP:OWN the bots, and contravenes the third of the m:foundation issues: "the wiki process" (we write articles and change community processes by discussion, not by fiat). To sum up: even in principle, people shouldn't be allowed to sign away their rights to make valid comments and criticisms, of a bot or anything (even if that gets labelled as "complaining"). They certainly shouldn't have such rights held to ransom over an opt-out process. Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, although I have separate disputes with beta and the bots ("beta and the bots" would be a good name for a rock band), the number of editors who do not have a dispute with beta is small enough that when I see a clear policy violation by beta, I don't see any reason not to note it.

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who removed the content from Beta's user page. Apparently someone signed it, then read the page and also found it unconscionable. Please specifically notify User:Obuibo Mbstpo as well as User:Carcharoth of the AN/I thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to be unblocked right away by the blocking admin. There is no urgency here and you should be able to adit the AN/I Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I think you're probably going to be unblocked soon. However, it could be helpful to ease the wikidrama if you were to indicate that you won't use the tools in relation to this dispute until this is sorted out. Only a suggestion. For what's it worth, I think you should be unblocked. Addhoc (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite all right. I have no intention of using the admin tools in regard the subpages, nor will I edit Beta's subpage until the MfD is resolved. ZScout seemed interested in finding a reasonable phrasing, so I don't think there's a problem there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually you were unblocked 10 mins ago by another admin. I strongly suggest however that you do not ever threaten to block someone you are in a dispute with again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2008

We're not 100% certain, that the USA in November 4th, 2008, will elect the 44th President. Bush could die, resign be removed from office, before his term expires. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Something doesn't seem correct in the grammar of this sentence. Can you please provide me with a link or a source so I can verify the information. That is why I added the [sic] and citation required. If there is no proper reference for this information I believe it should be removed per wikipedia's policy. I'm posting a copy of this message on the discussion page of the related article. (Please see the related related changes you made here). --CyclePat (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Evangelion franchise article

Was the "wildly successful" part the only thing that warranted the weasel words template, or did you see other phrases that merit attention? I'm just trying to get an idea of how much work needs to be done before I start editing. Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just what caught my eye. I was reading 2016 for the fictional reference to the TV series, and managed to confirm it in the list of episodes.
I'd say the entire lead paragraph starting "The TV Series", and much of the #Other Media section resembles pavo plumage. I haven't checked the other articles in the franchise.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you read the reference in the very sentence you are objecting to? --Gwern (contribs) 17:47 19 March 2008 (GMT)
Honestly, unless the phrase "wildly beyond expectation" is part of a quote from the book, it does sound a little flowerly. If some text from the book can be included in the ref, this will help a lot. I also took a stab at a rewrite on the Other Media section. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of cited material from world health organization

Why are you deleting cited material from the world health organization on chiropractics? those edits were newtral and no undue weight. This is a fallacious edit. I will report you to admins if you abuse any more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.184.27 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are reverting a fully cited material from world health organization despite agreement on chiropractics talk page. Please do not delete cited material from newtral, notable and verifiable sources like w.h.o. Thanks. 64.25.184.27 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the Quack that it's WP:UNDUE weight. But you're at 6RR, so you need to wait for someone else to agree with you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Quack guru agrees with the edits on chiropractic talk. you are deleting fully referenced material this is newtral. no one has said undue weight, different sections were edited and referenced from world health organization and textbooks. these are verifiable, notable, reliable and are good edits. 64.25.184.27 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did Quack revert you, then. In any case, I'll have to leave it for a newtral neutral admin, as I can't give you the block you deserve for 7RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

False Allegations

Arthur,

Do not accuse me of sockpuppetry again. I have not ever done so and to imply this is slander. I will not tell you again. Stop. EBDCM (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you be indef-blocked again under WP:LEGAL. It's not slander. If false and actionable it would be libel, but it's an "as reported to me". A look back at your talk page suggests that you've even written comments there under a 208. IP address. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have already discussed the 208 IP which is what happens when my account times out. Also, I have already told this to anyone and it's there for everyone to see. Then it is libel, whatever term you want to use. It's wrong and I'll ask that you retract your statement. EBDCM (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I was responded to your inquiries and would appreciate that you desist making any more untrue statements about my character. Have a good one. EBDCM (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex crimes - can you help?

Sorry! I may have messed up what you were doing. I am trying to fine a way that Category:Sex crimes does not double list Category:Child abuse. Now Category:Child abuse shows up twice under Category:Sex crimes, once on in its own independent category and once nested under Category:Sexual abuse -- if you click it you will see. How to fix this? Any suggestions? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't mess it up this time. User:Jack-A-Roe did. I'm contacting him, too. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This category stuff is really tricky! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Religion

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your help with some articles involving Georgia and religion. I believe there are a few Georgian nationalists who are suppressing all mention of religious animosity in Georgia and try to pass it off as a haven of Free Religion. I have found significant references from sources such as the New York Times that corroborate stories of mob violence against Protestants in the country, and have added a paragraph to the Georgia article's Religion section. Such a paragraph has been previously removed, and the other articles about Georgian religion need to be updated to reflect the paragraph in the Georgia article. I don't have the time to significantly update and do detailed research of such oppression, or combat nationalists seeking to have their country viewed as great and spotless. Can you give me a hand here? Thanks for your time --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Update The situation seems to be resolved. A major editor of Georgian related articles is now assisting me. Related articles may still need to be updated and research might need to be done, but he will likely take care of it aswell as ensure vandalism does not occur. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

I have full-protected the Eric Lerner article for one week or until you guys can settle this on the article's talk page. Blueboy96 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think the information MUST remain, but I think it should, and can wait for a more credible source. That propaganda site is probably reliable in context with Eric, though, as it's only defamatory to LaRouche. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Plank

So the discussion on deletion of Sub-Planck cannot be reopened? --Dr.enh (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Planck is a good article: how to restore?

I have a Ph.D. in particle physics, and everything Physicman123 said is true. He has two relevant, peer-reviewed sources in Phys. Rev. Lett. Sub-Planck is a distinct topic from the Planck Scale. No particle physicist would disagree with his list of schools of thought.

Yes, it would be nice if he had put in some footnoted references. No, I am not going to put in footnoted references because I no longer have free access to the journals he referenced.

Overall, the Sub-Planck article is of better quality than the Planck Scale article to which it was pointing. The theoretical ideas section of the Planck Scale article has numerous unreferenced, highly speculative questions in an unenclyopedic form.

If you are going to get rid of Sub-Planck again, then the Planck Scale article should go to. But I think that both articles, depsite their unclear referencing, are helpful to beginners and laymen in particle physics.

How do I re-open the discussion on the deletion of Sub-Planck?

--Dr.enh (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The place to reopen it would be at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but, the suggestion was that all sourced material could be added to Planck scale. Now most of the material added had no source whatsoever, or is non-peer-reviewed speculation, but that would be the appropriate action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sea Otter

I know the difference with the its and it is but on the Sea Otter page after all the it`s were changed back to its you guys changed also changed the its that WERE showing ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentburple (talk • contribs) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry

lol, sorry, i got a bit carried away. --Striver - talk 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

... thus outside the RfA

I should point out that I wasn't involved in the dispute, which makes all the difference. *sigh* This should not have happened, and as I had made clear on the AN/I thread, I would have unblocked you as soon as things settled down or you made assurances that you wouldn't use your tools until it did. I have absolutely nothing against you, nor do I have anything at stake in the whole BC mess.

Personally, I consider the matter entirely settled and water under the bridge, and I hope you feel the same. — Coren (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that dispute with beta, either. I was involved in disputes with beta, but, on that one, I can't see it as a content dispute.
I consider the matter settled, except as it shows there are policy/guideline questions which may require clarification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!  :-) You'll get no argument from me that "require clarification" is pretty much the default state of many policies and guidelines. — Coren (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

I have apparently contradicted most, if not all of your statement at this deletion process. Would you please reconsider your vote. thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of user:Earth is over

Doesn't WP:AIV require that warnings escalate to Level 4 before a block is issued? I was surprised to see that you issued a block after only a Level 2 warning. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I've just read WP:BLOCK and I see that personal attacks allow a block without those additional warnings. Wdfarmer (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ACTUALLY I am the sole contributor

Actually.... I am the sole contributor. The people that edited this article only added PROD, DELETE, AND SPEEDY.... That is administrative content and is nothing to do with the article. If you disagree I urge you to please bring this up to the ANI board. After all, you wanted to SPEEDY it youself. --CyclePat (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned your name at WP:ANI. here regarding this conflict. --CyclePat (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you were to request deletion/userfication either by a {{db-author}} or by noting it on the AfD page, it would probably be done, but not by me. But moving the article while under consideration of AfD is seriously inappropriate. 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My commments on ANI. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I'm sorry about the disagreement we are having and the edit conflict we just had regard this article. I've asked on WP:ANI that the article be fully protect until we can determine who the main author is. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Light brown apple moth controversy

I see that you reverted a series of edits made by an anonymous editor. They did not seem unreasonable, and some of them were sourced. Can you share your reasoning? An explanatory edit summary would have been nice. Thanks. —johndburger 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Some of the 14 may be reasonable, but he anon continually edits the same articles, and his edits to Template:911tm are clear vandalism. It's a matter of "guilt by association" -- if the edits in articles I monitor are clear vandalism, it's not unreasonable to assume his other edits are. Please feel free to revert if you're willing to reaffirm them. Some of them do seem unsourced WP:BLP violations, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax protester (United States)

Good call, regarding your addition of the tag. I've been pondering that edit, trying to figure out whether the verbiage should be left alone, tagged, or deleted -- even though I believe it's a good faith edit and a correct statement. Famspear (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

a question

Hi Arthur,

One of the weakness I've found in Wikipedia is how to deal with the pov pushers.

I wrote an extensive criticism section in Psychohistory. However, another editor has inserted his POV. I have tried to explain him the reasons a section is still POV and factually inaccurate. I asked not to remove the tag while we are discussing. He continues to do so. If I revert, he'll revert. I don't know what to do. Please keep in mind that I added most of the criticism section in that article. However, it is different from POV, flawed criticism. To avoid an edit war I am supposed to ask for a third opinion. What would you recommend. I only want the tag in that section until differences are ironed out.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

—Cesar Tort 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not add most of the criticism and if you did would the bit i add be this much of a disturbance? Everything i have added is all sourced (some many times over thanks to cesar constantly looking for something to revert, and he still has not, this says something), all by college professors and other notable doctors including Barzun. How to deal with me Cesr? Talk to me, as far as i know i have resolved all the issues you put on the talk page i removed the tag and you added back because you plan to find something else wrong about it in the future? that makes no sense and you can see his pov because of this. So if you want to deal with me talk to me. Sorry to use your board Arthur Rubin, thankyou.Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not resolve the issues he put on the article talk page. Perhaps it should be downgraded to {{pov-section}}, as I don't see a clear factual dispute any more, but Cesar says there's a dispute, and the POV question which Cesar brought up has clearly not been resolved. The tag should remain if there is still a dispute and editing is occuring. If you had dealt with all his objections to your satisfaction and the article had been stable for some time, then the tag could possibly be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion, of course, belongs in talk:psychohistory. I just want to respond here to: "You did not add most of the criticism". If you see the history of the page, Ishmaelblues, you'll know that, after user:Slrubenstein asked me to take into serious consideration his criticism of the article, I wrote for the enemy. Yes: starting the criticism section was my idea and I added the material Slrubenstein called my attention to. On the other hand, I dispute the material you added, and gave my reasons there. But as I said, from now on I will discuss in that page instead of doing it here. —Cesar Tort 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock BongGone

I mistook that Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) reverted "BongGone"'s previous edit, so I thought that the block on {{User|BongGone]] by Furt.Perf was valid per the new rule. In turn, the violator on the naming order is Sennen goroshi. He made others and me believe that his revert is legitimate as leaving confusing edit comment. Sennen goroshi's revert has nothing to do with BongGone or other's previous edit and "the rule". He actually reverted Furf.Perf's revision, so Sennen is the one who should be blamed for the violation on the naming rule. BongGone only restored his lame revert "per rule".

Therefore, I believe the admin blocked the wrong guy instead of Sennen goroshi. The admin does not seem to be active now, so I come to bring a unblock request. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

the rule on that article is that no user may revert the naming order more than once. I reverted the naming order once, bonggone reverted it at least three times. The rules were clear. I followed them, and when my edit was reverted, I made no attempt to edit the naming order again, as per the guidelines. BongGone made edits based on reversing the naming order on three occasions, I see no need to remove his block. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BongGone restored your edit once today because you violated the naming rule! Your switching from Dokdo/Takeshima to Takeshima/Dokdo is not surely preceded after consecus and discussion. You did not follow any guideline. Then your wrong edit summary misled people and he was blocked instead of you! Certainly, Sennen goroshi should be on the charge that fix the disruption by Sennen. --Appletrees (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Management Mission

I Have seen that you referted the last edit made to the management article, see here. I already started a discussion about this on Talk:Management#How to described the mission, because I my opinion that change wasn't that bad. Could you give a responce over there. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Shin Jyutsu

My apologies for not understanding how to work the Wikipedia system properly.

I did put in an article, how ever since it was also deleted, I was simply attempting to get the information into it's correct location. I included the website as a reference as well, so that all information could be verified.

If you still have the article on file, please let me know, as I would appreciate having it so that the article itself can be put in the appropriate section.

Thankyou, Riversinger, CMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiversongCMT (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your article was deleted as being a copyright violation of http://www.jinshinjyutsu.com/ . If that's not the case, or if the web page has sufficient waiver of copyright to meet our copyright requirements, please request deletion review or let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Arthur, I noted your WP:AE report of today and have begun investigating. For part of it, I think you were astute in this comment of March 25th - so far as I can tell, in Icke's article the bit about 9/11 is not well sourced. You might want to improve the sourcing; the issue seems to be his book # Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster, UK, Bridge of Love Publications, 2002. ISBN 0953881024, which I spotted from this source(?) which includes a longer title. Can you fix this sourcing while I keep looking at the WP:AE report? GRBerry 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I appreaciate the heads up. Unfortunately, we need to source all three of the items he allegedly attributes to reptillians, and I don't think they can all be sourced to that book. I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-03)

Time Times
Issue One • March 2008 • About the Newsletter
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier

News

Recent Project News
  • Time Times I, Zginder, have started this the official newsletter of the project. This newsletter is part of the Time Times, which has been created to update our members on the latest news at the project and on time.
  • This first posting is late because I did not even come up with the idea until 2008-03-08. In the future I plan to have it ready to publish before the month begins. (If anyone should do things on time on Wikipedia it should be us, no?)
  • Article count over 800! By my count we now have 873 articles but, will have many more soon. Less than 200 are assessed though, plenty of work for us to do.
  • Portal:Time now working thanks to Yamara.
  • Project member count reaches 11 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends.
  • Remember: The project is now accessible from new shortcuts, WP:TIME and WP:TIMEPRO.
  • Project gets a new look thanks to Yamara, if you have not seen it yet stop on by.
Recent Time News
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here.
Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the talk page before reverting...

If you had read the talk page before reverting, you would have figured out that we had reached consensus not to split that infinitive. Would you self-revert, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-04)

Time Times
Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier

News

Recent Project News
  • Article count on at 961! We now have 961 articles but, will have many more soon as only a few are marked as in our project. At least 803 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do.
  • Project member count reaches 12 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends.
  • Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal
  • An IP added this funny comment to Portal talk:Time "I never though I would see the day mankind succeeds in creating a time portal."
Recent Time News
  • From the leap second article: in April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap second[s].
  • Calendars met on March 21. It was Good Friday (Western Christianity, 2008); Purim ends at sundown (Judaism, 2008); Naw-Rúz in the Bahá'í calendar, Benito Juárez Day in Mexico, World Poetry Day.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here.
Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

3O

Hi Arthur,

I noticed you posted a 3O and signed with four ~. 3O procedure is to use 5, timestamp only, so there's no bias based on the editor requesting (that's the theory). I've removed your name, hope you don't mind. WLU (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OOPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted bit on the 9/11 article

Hi, you deleted my link to Alexander Litvinenko on the grounds that he wasn't related to al-Qaeda. However, one of his very public accusations was that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in late 1996 till early 1997, and was "an old agent of the FSB." According to the main 9/11 article before I made any modifications, the famous 1998 fatwa by bin Laden, al-Zawahi, and and some others was issued less than a year after al-Zawahiri left Russian custody (in jail say the FSB and al-Zawahiri, being trained by the FSB says Litvinenko and at least one other former FSB agent). The fatwa redirected the focus of Islamic terrorism (bin Laden's al-Qaeda merged with al-Zawahiri's Egyptian Jihad, both terrorism powerhouses) not just towards the West (which had already been happening), but more importantly towards Western citizens in their own country. In The Looming Tower, the author pointed to al-Zawahiri of the author of the fatwa. The 1993 WTC bombing was the first instance of this strategy in the US (I think?), but 9/11 was obviously the most noteworthy. Before, the attacks were directed at American military or diplomatic installations, but after the fatwa, civilians became fair game. Al-Zawahiri, though not often discussed, is widely acknowledged by the media as the number 2 in al-Qaeda. However, Hamid Mir (bin Laden's self-chosen biographer) said once that believes that al-Zawahiri was really in charge, both in the public relations and logistics of al-Qaeda. From what I understand, Litvinenko alleged that al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB, and another former FSB agent says that Litvinenko himself was in charge of facilitating al-Zawahiri's entrance into Russia. On the basis of this, I think Litvinenko is relevant to anything related to al-Qaeda after the issuance of the 1998 fatwa – his accusations are too serious not to note, especially given that he accurately predicted that the consequence of defection and publicly making these allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssmith619 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Logic Programming and the Arbcom restriction

Hello Arthur. My semi protection of this article has just expired. There has been a new IP edit that seems to add a reference to Hewitt's work. Do you think this edit violates any Arbcom restriction? If so, you could revert this change. I don't believe I should edit the article if I may need to protect it again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless constraint logic programming is Hewitt's concept alone, it seems a reasonable edit, which, in addition, adds a Hewitt reference. I'll have to investigate further. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You reverted without talk page discussion and edit summaries are not supposed to be used as a substitute. My addition to the talk pages relating to this matter is at Talk:Homeopathy#Homeopathy is and isn't implausible. My point, if it is not clear, relates to the matter of "scientific principles". If Whorton is being used to support the case that homeopathy does not conform to mainstream principles then his overall conclusion needs stating too. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

asking for advice

Hi Arthur,

I am still having trouble with the same editor in psychohistory.

Which is the next step? To ask for a third opinion? Leave a message in the mediation boards? I doubt that this dispute can be solved without some sort of mediation.

Which board or admin or regular editor would you recommend for a third opinion?

Glad to see you back,

Cesar Tort 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears

ok, sorry :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XCheese360 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

....interesting, I thought I did sign that last message, but I obviously didn't.--XCheese360 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi,

I'm a fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time and have made a fair amount of contributions lately--enough, at least, that I suspect that I (and the articles I edit) could benefit from Rollback privileges. Would you be willing to grant me these?

Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please be careful, as I've been warned for improper use of rollback, myself. (Note that the guideline as to what proper use is has been tagged "historical", so I can't tell you what the consensus is.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate it, and I'll be careful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

War Resister

Hello Arthur, I added the term War Resister to the article not to make any kind of political point of my own about war and its viability, but because this is a commonly used term (google it and see) analogous to Draft Dodger which is in common usage in Canada. Please consider re-adding it to the article. Thank you.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The first few Google references seem to be general opposition to (a) war, and some deserters. I really don't see it.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwyer (professor)

This AfD has recently been closed by an admin as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. This decision has been taked to a deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 27#John Dwyer (professor). Since you initiated the original AfD, you may want to comment in the deletion review discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sea Otter

May I please ask you why you deleted rare and the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the behavior, which is described in the article. If you want to remove this image, please discuss it at talk page of the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not rare.... I suppose it's more-or-less reasonable, but the article is getting inundated with pictures. Perhaps you should remove Image:Sea_otter_with_sea_urchin.jpg. Its caption does not support existing text in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
May I please ask how many times you've seen a sea otter using a rock to break a shell or to kill a prey, or just a sea otter with a rock? Have you taken any pictures so far? Have you seen any picture of that kind of behavior at Wikipedia, or maybe at Flickr? The caption could be changed. The image you pointed out to is a very good high quality image and I wish I took it, but it is not mine image and usually I do not remove such good images from the articles, if they were not taken by me. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I said, that picture supports only its caption, not anything else in the article, so it shouldn't be there. Neither picture is rare, but there are few pictures released with a license we can use.
As an aside, there should be a way to get pictures closer to the article text they support. You're about 3 paragraphs up on my screen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, thank you for the response. I personally like the image of sea otter with a sea urchin much better than the top low resolution image of the article. The caption of the image claims that it is of sea otter with a pup, but pup is hard to impossible to see. I even believe that this image of mine might be better than a current top image. Anyway, as I said, I just wanted to let you know my opinion and now you could remove any image you wish including the one with the rock from the article . I care no more. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I think an edit summary on your part would have led to less stress all around. This isn't a great way to use the rollback button. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That memory leak

From your post on AN which I hadn't seen until now, it seems we're in agreement that Wikipedia makes Firefox leak memory? What can be done about it? What Firefox are you using? The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-05)

Time Times
Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier

News

Recent Project News
  • Article count at 1074! At least 911 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do.
  • Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal
  • History of timekeeping devices reaches Good Article Status —On April 7 the history of time keeping article became a GA. This is our only top importance article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status.
  • History of timekeeping devices in Egypt was a DYK —The article appeared on the Main Page on April 8. With this text: "...that despite Herodotus's claim that the sundial was invented in Babylon, the oldest known example is from Egypt?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad.
Recent Time News
  • None that I know of.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer recieve this newsletter, please add your name here.
Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for removing your ref fix

[15] I didn't see it. Cheers, silly rabbit (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've done things like that before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello friend

Hello friend, haven't seen you around the Quatloos web site lately. I post in the tax protester forum over there fairly often now.

I noticed that you deleted some of the ranting by user "BobHurt" (or "Bobhurt" - he uses two different accounts) that I had dealt with on the talk page for Income tax. And now Bob has been blocked from editing for a while. Curiously, an anonymous user (users?) seems to have been following him around in Wikipedia lately, pointing out his, um, "activities." Bob shows up here about once or twice a year and tries to debate with me on his tax protester arguments, or he rails about the putatively "corrupt" judicial system, and so on. For some reason he cannot release himself from the idea that I am from Dallas (I'm not).

Anyway, I hope things are well with you. Famspear (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi Arthur,

Would you mind adding some explanation of the revert of my edit to the talk page? Also, do you think putting an RfC tag in the NPOV tag section would be a good idea to get more input? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 and GTA IV

Hi regarding the 2008 article, the 2008 game GTA IV is set in 2008 so therefore it is not vandlism. If you want i will provide links to other wikipedia articles stating the year as 2008

Liberty_City_(Grand_Theft_Auto)#Grand_Theft_Auto_IV_rendition
Niko_Bellic
Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments

See my talk page for a reply. Marcus22 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Linear regression

I was surprised by your edit to linear regression with its edits summary that was so emphatic about PROPER explanation of linearity. I was concerned that some of your words might be misunderstood as meaning that polynomial regression is not an instance of linear regression, and then I came to your assertion that if one column of the design matrix X contains the logarithms of the corresponding entries of another column, that makes the regression nonlinear (presumably because the log function is nonlinear). That is grossly wrong and I reverted. Notice that the probability distributions of the least-squares estimators of the coefficients can be found simply by using the fact that they depend linearly on the vector of errors (at least if the error vector is multivariate normal). Nonlinearity of the dependence of one column of the matrix X upon the other columns does not change that at all, since the model attributes no randomness to the entries in X. Nonlinear regression, on the other hand, is quite a different thing from that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Both versions are completely wrong, I'm afraid. I just thought the version I reverted to was closer to reality than the anti-matrix warrior's version. I'll have to make a more detailed study of the two versions and construct one that resembles reality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So what is it you think is wrong with the version that gives the following model?

Y = X\beta + \varepsilon\,

where

  • X is a nonrandom and observable n × p matrix;
  • β is a nonrandom and unobservable p × 1 vector, to be estimated based on the data, using least squares;
  • ε is a random and unobservable n × 1 vector of errors;
  • Y is a random and observable n × 1 vector.

That is what is usually called linear regression. The fact that one column of X depends in a nonlinear way on another doesn't change that. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put in the following language:
If there is any linear dependence amongst the columns of X, then the coefficients β cannot be estimated by least squares unless β is constrained, as, for example, by requiring the sum of some of its components to be 0. However, some linear combinations of the components of β may still be uniquely estimable in such cases.
Michael Hardy (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CorticoSpinal

Wow and double wow! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my place to bring it up. If someone wants to lobby AN/I for an indefinite ban, continuing the indefinite ban of his predecessor account, I certainly wouldn't object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

FYI, a claim has been made that you support moving interpretation (logic) to mathematical model. I find this hard to believe. If true, I have to assume that you misspoke, since the article "mathematical model" is about the applied math topic, as in we need to create a model of this or that mechanical system in order to build it, type of thing - as opposed to models in model theory and logic. Of course both topics involve, ahem, "interpretations" and so forth - though, again, with different meanings. Tparameter (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that a merge of model (abstract) to mathematical model mode more sense than Greg's move of that article to formal interpretation. (Greg is good at misinterpreting apparently unambiguous statements. Perhaps someone merged my comment into a different talk page as Greg rewrote and repurposed the interpretation articles? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I figured as much. Normally I would defer to your expertise or assume your were misquoted in a case like this. Tparameter (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of wars 2003–current

While I don't quite get what you're getting at with "as many of your other edits are," the number itself cannot be found in the article by clicking ctrl-F and typing in the number. You must add up the maximum Iraqi deaths, coalition deaths, contractor deaths, and media deaths, if I'm not remembering the number of categories of deaths in the article incorrectly. The number might actually be low.Fifty7 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're violating synthesis by assuming that the numbers are calculated using the same methodology. The correct number might be larger, but we may only use individually sourced numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point. But how do we accurately reflect the truth without doing that? The true number of fatalities can only be found by combining the various totals that are given in the article Casualties of the Iraq War only in separate forms. -- Fifty7 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As has been said many times, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH or Truthiness (well, that hasn't been said many times), but about verifiability. I've removed statements from articles which are obviously true, but for which a single reliable source has not been found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

unsourced BLP violations

Kindly describe which ones are unsourced, and how they violate BLP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

Dr Eugene Mallove, a proponent of Cold Fusion, was murdered in 2004 a few months after writing an open letter to the world requesting research funds for Cold Fusion and Zero Point Energy. [21]

Despite free energy suppression being labeled a conspiracy theory, events supporting this technology are held at MIT, such as "Cold Fusion Science and Technology with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology" [22]. A paper was presented at another MIT Cold Fusion Conference, which covered the "Hutchison Effect". [23]

John Hutchison, known for the Hutchison Effect, filed an official affidavit with the US District Court, Southern District of New York, in support of Dr Judy Wood's case alleging that directed energy weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. This case is represented by well-known attorney Jerry Leaphart. [24]

Complete Truth (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The association of the murder with the "open letter"[21] is WP:SYN. I was wrong about WP:BLP, as there's no implication of a specific living person being involved. However, the connection is not made in Eugene Mallove, so probably shouldn't be made here.
24 is Judy Wood's web site, so is not reliable. We would need reliable secondary sources for all of:
  1. Hutchison filed an affidavit.
  2. Judy Wood's case is notable.
  3. That the case or affidavit is relevant to the topic. (The claim that the "Hutchison Effect" might be relevant to the topic doesn't support any of the text.)
Some other notes about Hutchison might be appropriate in the article, as it appears he is a fraud inventor who may have invented something he claims is suppressed. However, as Hutchison is living, and the statement is contraversial, WP:BLP applies.
The second paragprah is WP:BIASed, even in the context of the article. [22] is either a personal website or a fringe publication, and is probably not acceptable as to the existance of the conference; and [23] may be acceptable as to the contents of the paper and the claim it was presented at MIT, but we really have no source that there was an MIT conference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


The wikipedia article on Mallove does make the connection between the paper and the murder. Check this section.
Hutchison's affidavit for Dr Wood's court case is accessible via the PACER system. The court case's docket number is: 1:07-cv-03314-GBD
The two cases that Leaphart is representing were vaguely mentioned in the New York Times. See here for quote and link to Times website.
Why do you call Hutchison a fraud? Should you be editing this article if you are biased?
Complete Truth (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In reverse order. I call Hutchison a fraud because he's believed to be one. See John Hutchison#Charges of fakery. But that doesn't mean his claims of free energy suppression might not be relevant to that article.
There's no claim in your statement that Hutchison's affidavit is related to free energy suppression.
The action affidavit is perhaps 1 of the 3 requirements (there still needs to be a secondary source that it's notable), and the NY Times reference would be at most one more. The relevance would still require a source.
Neither the letter nor the sole reference in Eugene Mallove#2004 murder supports the theory that anyone but Hoagland thought there was a connection to the murder. I suppose you only need one "true believer" for it to be a conspiracy theory, though.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on your last change to the Steven E. Jones article....

Perhaps you take the editor's contributions a little too seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.110.17

Wowest (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)