User talk:Arthur Rubin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. |
|
[edit] DTTR
Please read WP:DTTR, and since I can't find any indications that Eubulides (talk · contribs) has engaged in edit warring, perhaps a review of WP:3RR would help clarify any confusion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- His edit summaries indicate that some of the changes are reversions. As I don't agree with him as to Wikipedia policies or the application of existing article probations, I just want to put him on notice that he may be considered to be edit warring. CS, QG, and SA are already clearly on notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- He's a "regular", but he may not be up on 3RR. _If_ you can point me to a 3RR warning he's received or made in the past, I'm perfectly willing to delete the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Within the past 24 hours I did do one revert here, at the invitation of the person who made the change being reverted. None of the other changes I made were true reverts, at least as I understand them. For example, in another edit I removed a bunch of stuff that was inserted with zero discussion, but that edit removed only part of what was inserted. If I am incorrect and some of my other edits are reasonably considered reverts, please let me know.
- At this point the edit war in Chiropractic has really gotten out of hand, with undiscussed, low-quality, partisan changes being jammed through by both sides. I have asked that controversial changes be discussed first, as the talk page header suggests, but that's being ignored now, and the article is rapidly going downhill. I suspect that both sides are jockeying for position, hoping that "their" version is the one that gets frozen when the article gets locked.
- I respectfully ask that Arthur Rubin remove the 3RR warning from my page; as far as I know it's not warranted for this particular case.
- Eubulides (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Actually, removal of "part" of a previous edit (other than your own) is clearly a revert under WP:3RR, even if it's a reversion of part of QG's non-consensus changes.
| “ | An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. | ” |
-
- I think you may have accidentally violated 3RR. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
When you suspect a regular, collabortative, good-faith editor may have approached 3RR, it's generally advisable to leave the editor a note rather than dropping a template. Templates are typically reserved for vandals and such. As a sign of good faith, you might consider removing the template and just discussing the matter, since Eubulides isn't the sort of editor who knowingly engages in edit warring or approaches 3RR. Also, edits performed during one editing session in succession count as one. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note: I restored my post which you inadvertently removed when you removed the template from Eubulides' page. Thank you for that courtesy. Also, I noticed that you commented there that you're an admin, so I hope you'll be aware of WP:DTTR. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Michael Tsarion
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Tsarion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tsarion (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? meco (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hovind
As a result of your revert under the heading "non-creationists," it says he debates old Earth creationists. Additionally, under "creationists" it says he debates old Earth creationists. My removal was to get rid of this contradiction, but you reverted it. Paper45tee (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I now removed it entirely. "Theistic scientists" is a weasel word for "creationists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] May 2008
- Note. I E-mailed Aude a request to check my edits on Joel Skousen, as I believe my opponent in this edit war has added clearly incorrect Wikilinks to that article, specifically here. I hope this isn't considered a violation of WP:CANVASS, but that edit almost rises to the level of BLP violation, as it implies that the organizations in question are alter egos of the people, which, is clearly unsourced. If it's considered controversial, it's a BLP violation against the people linked.
- I'm not convinced I violated 3RR, but I accept that I was edit warring, so I won't challenge the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Free energy suppression
You know perfectly well I didn't make any contribution I reverted a contribution you had deleted. I asked you specifically not to delete the sourced part of the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_suppression&diff=215011644&oldid=215009344
Your comment on my talk page doesn't reflect this fact and it doesn't contain a link to the specific offence. With you being an administrator I assume you left this out intentionally. I asked you to leave the sourced information in the article. You then deleted the whole contribution again calling it irrelevant, you actually had a different excuse then when you deleted it the first time.
Additionally you vandalised my effort towards cleaning up the talk page. Posts where the goal of the editors is to obstruct the development of the article can be deleted. There is nothing wrong with this. Obstruction and personal attacks have no place on the talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
You are intentionally obstructing the editors by not communicating deleting the contributions and restoring the nonsense. Go-here.nl (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Whether you added them or reverted my deletion of the sections is irrelevant. They're still BLP violations which would, even if adequately sourced, be only marginally relevant to the article.
- Most of the talk page sections you deleted seemed as sensible as your comments, and relevant to the article, not just to the subject. It's possible that one or two of the 7 sections you deleted deserved to go.
- As you are apparently an experienced user, I will no longer give warnings as to obvious violations of Wikipedia policy before blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
from my talk page: I think I was wrong about it being a BLP violation. It's still irrelevant to the article, or it's relevance is WP:SYNthesized. And the talk page sections seemed coherent and potentially relevant to the article; at least as relevant as the sections you re-added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you forgot to mention this was resolved as your error here.
You also mention banning me in the context of your erroneous content dispute and you falsely accused my friend John of being a fraud. A few posts above this one.
Your only comment on the page is:
There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements. I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content.
The talk page posts you had reverted also call Yull Brown a fraud. Just another case of the water car scam. Which I consider offencive but that is not important, it is erroneous and uncivil from an uninformed author.
I'm willing to look up referenced for the article where necessary but your lie based reverting does not help at all. Or do you have actual proof John's ZPE batteries are a fraud with your fraud accusation? We need documented sources of suppression not original research and false accusation.
Please help, thanks. Go-here.nl (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarianism ?
I read that you describe yourself as a Libertarian. Yet your edits on the Alex Jones page are less than friendly. Jones advocates the principles of individual liberty, and the drastic reduction of govt.
I find this puzzling, and thought it would be more productive to ask you why and give you full space to reply.
Yours
Evadinggrid (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The categorization of Jones as libertarian have been removed from the article. The term used there is paleoconservative, which doesn't strike me as particularly "liberarian".
- However, even if Jones were libertarian, I cannot defend his comments which I consider factually or ideologically wrong. When even Libertarian Party members who make comments I consider idiotic, I don't try to defend the comments. For example, I believe the Libertarian Party candidate in 2004 was a known tax protester. Believing income tax should be illegal, and believing it is illegal, are two different things, and I could not support a candidate who believed the latter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am not an American and I am living in Britian, although I did used to live in Mount_Airy, Philadelphia. So, some of the more subtle points of american politics are a mystery. As an outsider I am aware that a political party like the Libertarians are composed of many different groups with possibly very opposite views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Community comment/reconfirm RfA
Dear Arthur, as an uninterested third party, I am curious to know if you'd be open to the idea of receiving a RFC/U or even consider reconfirming yourself as an admin? There has been some concern generated since you've been blocked five times since January 2008. I look forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's appropriate. To the best of my recollection, there have only been a few accusations of misuse of admin tools;
- A misuse of rollback, after which it was discovered that we didn't have a guideline for the correct use of rollback;
- A block (for the duration of April 1) of an established editor for what I took to be an April Fools joke;
- Speedy deletion of a β user subpage as a misrepresemtation of policy (it was eventually deleted by user request, as consensus would not allow it to remain as a misrepresentation of policy). I was blocked for that one, but the block was found unfounded by consensus, although there was no consensus as to whether my action was correct.
- Most of the other alleged misuse of admin tools have been found completely unfounded.
- Four of the blocks were for edit warring (although only 3RR correctly once), 3 on same article. The other block, as noted above, was found inappropriate by consensus.
- There doesn't appear to be a consensus that edit warring is or should be grounds for desysoping, unless admin tools were used in that war. All except one of my blocks are for edit warring (that one mentioned above), and I've never used admin tools in an edit war, mostly on the same article, and mostly based on a single field in an infobox; my current take being that, without that field, the infobox is misleading, and, under WP:BLP, should be deleted, even if the subject would prefer the tag gone.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Oh, sorry. Thank you for the advice. Brady4mvp (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 conspiracy article revert
Your recent edit to this article has nullified my 2-hour work to reorganise it. Nothing was deleted save for a few unnecessary words for streamlining. If you disagreed with my added sources, why destroy all the work I did? My edit made the article so much easier to read- in which format a significant consensus-backed shortening of the article may have been more possible. Since Im quite new to this community, your laziness to correct the intro (which was the only part you voiced a problem with) has really demoralised me to make future contributions to this encyclopedia.Autonova (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've just reverted back to the format that I worked towards but left out the intro you had a problem with- original intro is now with revised format. Hope that's alright.Autonova (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see anything removed this time. I don't consider the structure better, but I can see it's mostly just a reorganization, although there appear to be some new unreliable sources added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- naysayer Evadinggrid (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] RE : "------"
Hello there I was putting the "-----" in to produce a line so that the templates wouldn't be too close to the writing above them, I've seen several other users do it, and I presumed that maybe it was something new that was being introduced, it does work quite effectively. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
- OK; it just seems odd to me. Sorry about that. I reverted one, as it doesn't seem to help, and removed one template, as it doesn't seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bentham Open
I really want to clear this up. If their policy is to have a peer review for all articles and they list it in their articles section. Why would it be treated any different? Tony0937 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm. From what I know of conventional professional journals, it doesn't seem adequate. The article in question states it's a "letter", and letters are not peer reviewed, unless specifically stated. I don't see "all articles are peer-reviewed" as adequate to cover a self-proclaimed "letter" unless it were more specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about the "Bentham Open" article by Jones, et al. Is there a way that this can be resolved through AGF? Tony0937 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Open Directory Project
Actually, the "sourced" sections did not support the statements at all. The first example: "There have long been allegations that volunteer..." is cited with a link to http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ which is a non-sequitur. Further removals I made were similar leaps of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Please take another look; every statement I removed was not backed up with a citation that supported it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to try to add sources to the ODP article. Most of the statements that are currently embellished with "citation needed" templates appear to be descriptions of criticisms of ODP or weasel-worded statements alleging various improprieties by ODP. I am not aware of much in the way of reliably sourced reports on any of this -- these criticisms were mostly "published" on websites maintained by disgruntled former editors and frustrated SEOs. If I were not affiliated with ODP, I would be inclined to remove much of this material as unsourced, but I can't do that due to COI. I'll look further into the matter of documenting the unsourced elements of the article, but I promise no miracles. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Time Times (2008-06)
 |
Time Times |
 |
|
Written by Zginder and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier |
||
|
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) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Attacks
Arthur, I am tired of the attacks. I do not deserve this level of humiliation. If you and the others are determined to continue to humiliate me, it will be a shame on you all. I hope you reconsider. I have reverted it again. Do what you will. I think its become very mean spirited. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's discussing your conduct, not your personality. I guess I have to submit it to WP:AN3 for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 2000s
I appreciate your protection of the page, 2000s. However, there is quite a bit of media attention that the decade name, unies, received versus the other names.
Now, I'm biased that I came up with the word but you have to include it as part of the page's history. Not including my efforts is a shame and not fair.
Did you look at the pages videos? Would you like to see more articles written about the unies, then visit www.theunies.com/blog/.
I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add content correctly. But if you would like to take the time to review the history of the unies, twenty-unies then visit the website. You can see articles and other information about the word. The years between 2010-2019 should be called the decies, the twenty-decies. The deci means tens and in roman numerals, decies is used to group the numbers between 10 & 19.
Thanks, Ryan Guerra
I look forward to your response.
- Actually, I like the "uh-oh"s. With a little effort, I can find a 1999 newspaper article suggesting that one. Including your own suggestions for a name, unless accepted (not just mentioned) in a WP:RS, is clearly inappropriate under WP:COI and WP:NEO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There are many articles about the Unies that specifically linked the name to a person. How does that fit into the equation? They are talking and discusing a name while the give me credit for creating the name. Many common names do not link directly to a single person. Did you see the articles from the State, the Columbia, SC newspaper? The Gamecock? WOLO's Good Morning Columbia? WLTX - Evening News.
- Irrelevant. It's your idea, someone else needs to add it unless it's accepted. I have some things I'd like to add to the Axiom of Choice article, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the discussion. I'm learning a lot. One more thing, as a mathematian, you use numbers on a daily basis. The counting numbers of 0 through 9 make up all the worlds numbers, correct? They are most often referred to as the single digits. Isn't the problem about naming the decade more mathematically then anything else? Uni means one, like unicyle and unicorn. It's also a prefix meaning to come together and make one uniformity and university. Every scenario in which you use a range between 0 and 9 could be helpful with a word like unies. Examples include: temperature, ages, weather, averages in sports and the missing decade dilemma. The next decade 2010-2019 has the same dilemma. The problem is again mathematical. You can use the word decies to describe all the numbers between 10-19. Deci means ten. Thanks for you time, and maybe you will see what I had to endure for 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunies (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, actually, I don't think the name of the decade is a mathematical question. I have no objection to your adding your proposed names for the decade(s) to the list of names (as I'd have to research all of them before reverting), but you really can't give it more prominence than the other proposed names. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. For the 2000s, there's been enough time that we could rationally demand evidence that a name in the list has been used;, rather than merely has been proposed. For the 2010s, I see no reason to think it should have different names than were used for the 1910s or 1810s, even if your proposal is rational. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The decade name is a mathematical problem. The decade name is simply a unit of measurement because the numbers between zero and nine can't not be group together in the traditional sense. In Latin terminology, uni - is a measurement of one numerical prefix, also listed on the page is deci- another unit of measurement numerical prefix. The only names for the decade that are listed on Wikipedia numerical prefix is the two that are presented in this discussion. Theunies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.144.39 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Homeopathy
I noticed that you have edited out the reference to a webpage "How does homeopathy works" stating the reason that it is not ea reliable source and it is a personal assay. But, I think you should reconsider your action, provided the person who wrote the article is a professional pharmacist (holding a degree of PharmD, and as clearly stated on the webpage, it is a reproduction of his article published elsewhere. Considerin the present antipathy among many professionals towards homeopathy, it is not very surprising that his views would not find a place in an high impact journal. But, let me add he is not advocating that homeopathy works, he is just offering some possible cues for further research, which in my opinion deserve a small corner in the Homeopathy article. 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs)
- If the article were previously published in a peer-reviewed journal, or if he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (from WP:SPS), it might be allowable. Otherwise, not.
- You may note that I have not opposed inclusion of pro-homeopathy references from peer-reviewed not-specifically-homeopathic journals, although I have been removing those which are badly misquoted.
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In the German dub, Cell actually says "Oh, shit!"
got protected. Slow day at RFPP... Sceptre (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Haseldine MfD
Hi - not sure what you mean by "copyright violations" in your comment on this MfD as there's no copyright issue in this case. Would you mind clarifying? Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to, because it involves an editor who has changed his name and reformed. Basically, an editor had been scanning certain journal articles and putting them up on his personal web site as "courtesy reprint" copies, even though he is clearly not a reliable source by our standards. I don't see why this is any worse.
- In the present situation, if we accept that the editor is the person, his own statements, even on Wikipedia, seem usable as WP:RS for the assetion that he said that, not as evidence of truth. I don't know why it would be relevant to any article but that on the person, but it seems to be considered such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any doubt he wrote those letters, however he's been using the talk namespace as a way to work around his COI ban by cross referencing this POV material from the articles he's not supposed to be editing. So the core issues are COI circumvention and intentionally disregarding the rules around self-referencing citations. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Haseldine dismissal
Regarding your last edit, I think I've interpreted this differently to you, based on the following passage in the ruling: "The Commission notes that the applicant was dismissed as a result of the publication in a newspaper of a letter in which he expressed certain opinions on the then Prime Minister's attitude to South Africa." Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I missed that sentence, but the commission also noted that there was adequate justification other than the letter for dismissal. In fact, I would interpret some of the analysis as wondering why he was still employed at the time of the incident. But I'm OK with a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Betacommand
Per this, please do not do that. I made a comment that was perhaps unwarranted, and got warnings for it, so I removed it and the reply solely aimed at my comment. How can you justify reinserting it without so much as a query or a notification? Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. Actually, I thought it might have been better if you struck it out rather than deleting it, but if SQL doesn't have any objection, delete it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FYI Morgellons
Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Shamelessly off topic question
Did you end working in academia and/or doing math professionally as a career? I'm curious about what happens to people who win big competitions early in their careers, how their lives turn out. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've been working in the aerospace industry, mostly. I've made use of some advanced math methods, and my present position involves some advanced linear algebra and statistics. I have been unemployed or semi-employed for about 15% of the time since I got my degree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the response. Sounds like a good field to be in, linear algebra is such a terrific subject. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hereditarily countable sets
I thought surely that, if the countable union of countable sets is countable, then the transitive closure of a hereditarily countable set is countable. I was curious about the converse. But Consequences of AC says something surprising - the latter statement is form 172, and not only is it totally unsure of its relation to former (31), but the latter might even imply full AC. Eh?
Now, I just now realised that in the actual statement of 172, the notion of "hereditarily countable" is not quite Jech's definition, and that in fact I myself had made the same mistake in the Wikipedia article. Therefore I wonder if Consequences has used a strange definition and arrived at a strange conclusion, or whether I have missed something else.
Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not immediately. I'm presently away from home, trying to take care of matters for my father's surgery tommorrow, and I think I'd need to look at a hardcopy of the book, and possibly at some personal notes, to be sure. As this is not really a Wikipedia-related question, have you asked the other co-author of Consequences? His E-mail is on the site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nothing obvious then, hmm. I have emailed him with the issue. Thank you for your time, and my well-wishes to your father. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
