![]() | 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 2005 | ← | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 |
Hey Arthur.
Notice you deleted a large block of text on 1 Dec from this section of the 2000's decade page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#Names_of_the_decade
Whilst I bow to your wikipedian experience, I wonder if you have not inadvertently lost some quite relevant and interesting detail, leaving something which feels ever so slightly slightly US biased.
As I'm sure you are aware there was some debate, especially in the British and Australian media about how to name the decade and at least in these territories "the noughties" has gained general acceptance. It is used frequently in print and broadcast media. I feel this is useful addition to the page, and certainly our mention of it could be better worded and sourced but it is surely not irrelevant.
Perhaps you would consider re-writing the text you removed, or if you do not have time I would be happy to have another go and place it on the discussion page. Do you think that is a good way to proceed?
best regards,
Mark -- Mapmark ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK Arthur, what you say makes perfect sense and thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts. So yes then I will have a go at redrafting that section with better references & paste it on the discussion page to see what others using that entry think. FYI, we cannot cite individual people in casual conversations of course but I have definitely head the noun used by ordinary members of the public so IMHO it is not just a construct of the media! Plus the word is now in the OED & dictionary.com so (although this doesn't prove common parlance) it is certainly ahead of some of the other examples currently on the page. Regards, Mark-- Mapmark ( talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I will be returning a number of the "Alternate names" to this article. I believe that by virtue of the section "Names of the Decade", and its introduction "Unlike previous decades, the 2000s never attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world." that these are ALL RELEVANT. Any removal of them following their return will see a request for consensus, and further removal will constitute vandalism unless an appropriate argument is made.
ATTN: Arthur Rubin - these citations are all relevant to show "usage" in the media and are valid.
Artx ( talk) 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since when do there have to be "non-industry" sources to distinguish between industry-specific terms? That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying: "Only medical textbooks differentiate between these two medical terms...no sources outside the medical industry can be found that do so. Therefore these terms must be considered identical." How is it that texts specifically talking about a subject are not sufficient to provide a basis for differentiation between terms...and further, we have to find texts that carry no weight on the subject? And somehow those are the valid sources? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war. How come I was the only one given the warning? And you're making exactly the same reverts!. - Regancy42 ( talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're RC patroling and didn't realize what's going on here. I have a troll/stalker reverting my edits and outing me, and (s)he's currently the subject of a thread at WP:AN/I. I understand what it's like to RC patrol and not realize what's going on as I do it myself quite often, but please refrain from further support of the troll's malicious behavior. Thanks for helping defending the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Arthur you have commented on my edit of the 2010s page as being unoriginal content, however the current content contains misinformation that cannot possibly have been cited from anywhere. The 2010s decade does not start on 1 January 2010, it starts on 1 January 2011. See these pages for information:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html
(search for year zero on both pages).
The current edit is NOT TRUE. I have added a discussion topic to the page to explore this issue, but in the meantime this page is spreading misinformation. Clearly you have a position of authority on wikipedia. Please can you use it to remove this misinformation?
Thank you in advance, zebulon99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebulon99 ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is in good faith, and I hope you see it as an intelligent request to have some one or perhaps more people co-author something on the peculiar nature of base-ten. I hold some of the details, perhaps most or all, but disentangling mathematics from personal narrative is something with which I am struggling. Just a short while ago, I almost e-mailed another Erdos #1, and then I quickly ran across you through no particular method that would have been expected to produce this result. I have more justification for being superstitious than anyone else does: My three closest same-generation relatives, cousins between whom I am the sole link, were born on the 19th, 19th and 20th anniversaries of the first three man-made nuclear explosions. This (late-learned) fact, my own self-aware egocentricity, and the sense that my own DOB (6 July 1964) might be something (it is, by removing a factor of four from each of 7061964 and 6071964) stimulated the calculation of (365+1/4)^4 (four years ago). This and the rest discovered is pretty much all elementary (as far as I can see), and it may not appeal to you, but please let me know if you're interested in helping me organize the material and perhaps finding something deeper (in mathematical terms) than what I already have. I'm looking to write a shattering article on the design hypothesis with little in it other than very basic mathematics for a science journal. My published work is very limited (two solutions and one problem in the American Mathematical Monthly). You can get another big coincidence and my e-mail address at OEIS by looking up 3360633, if you would continue with communications by that means. Julzes ( talk) 11:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not meaning to clog up your space, and assuming neither that you would or would not respond with or without my saying more, I really should sell myself more clearly. Briefly, my history on the subject of Design prior to what I've learned would have to be characterized as angry-at-all-the-stupidity atheist (with mild and mostly liberal Christian family influences and varieties of friends). Mathematically, I was one of four people nationally to achieve National Honor Role status from the AHSME all four years from 1979 through 1982 and I placed 11th on the USAMO in 1982 despite being pretty deep into an approaching need for psychiatric hospitalization. My family was broken in early childhood and there were no attended-to signs I would be prodigious mathematically until I was allowed to skip from Algebra 1 to Calculus by a quick self-study program. That's enough to guage the person; to guage the specifics of the subject, please do write. It would go better with your involvement, in my opinion. Julzes ( talk) 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the title of this section from the obnoxious "I want to be an Erdos #2" to the real topic. If 4 is correct, I apologize for my ignorance. Julzes ( talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I will not stop. It is interesting that it is being called the 2010 decade. Do you think the first decade by your calculations was the 00 decade and went from 01/01/00 to 12/31/09? I believe we agree that there are 10 years in a decade. Assuming we can agree that the first day of the first year of the CE was 01/01/01, simple math shows that the first day of the First Decade of the Third Millennium was 01/01/2001! Now the media and a lot of people may have wanted it to be 01/01/2000, but that does not make it so.
I suppose if a person wanted to take an arbitrary 10 year period and call it for example the 2005-2014 decade that would be ok. This article is infering that the 21st Century began on 01/01/2000, that is absolutely false!
Additionally I went back through the history of this page and I see numerous discussions where several people agree that "technically" the years ending in 00 are the actual last year of their respective time periods. The main responses seem to be along the lines that most people believe they end in 09 so they should end in 09.
Another point I want to add that if the 12/31/09 date is correct then the article stating that 2011 is the 11th year of the millennium would have to be incorrect. If it is correct, which it is, the eleventh year of the millennium has to be the first year of the second decade of the millennium. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Based on some of the comments I have seen if enough people agree that 1+1=3, then that is what is should say on Wiki. That is not my understanding of what Wikipedia is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the citation you wanted.
Greenwich England is where East meets West at the Greenwich Meridian (0° Longitude); World Time is set Greenwich Mean Time. Remember the new millennium started in 2001.
These are the official date/time keepers for the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In the meantime, I would wish you a Happy New Year! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope your vacation rocked, and you are refreshed and renewed! KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit to Prime-counting function showed what appears to be WP:COI: User:Werner D. Sand claiming a conjecture as his own. But aside from authorship, I'm really not sure why we have this conjecture on the page at all. What do you think?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A user NimbusWeb, who appears to be a newcomer to the way Wikipedia works, has made a request on the above enforcement page concerning you. I've responded asking him to follow the usual dispute resolution path. Being a newcomer he doesn't seem to have communicated directly with you, so I thought it would be a good idea to let you know what's happening. It's nothing to worry about, just a guy who hasn't yet learned the ropes. -- TS 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
In relation to your edits on biosequestration carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. Please be aware of WP:3RR and WP:REVERT. You might also wish to consider more carefully the terms of the article probation. NimbusWeb ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted your revert on zero year. Regarding the application of zero concept to decades, please see the discussion here. It is addressed as a matter of fact in the counting of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Year_zero#Chronologists. Do you have a source that refutes the math and says that a century is 10 decades +1 the last year of the preceding decade from the preceding century and -1 one year of the last decade? or that Decades start one year after the Century? I would be interested in see that (that's not sarcasm, I would seriously like to see somewhere this has been published). — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
please dont edit war, Discuss here
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Children of God (religious group) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Weaponbb7 (
talk)
02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] - you put one too many tildes in your signature here, I believe. Might want to fix that :) henrik• talk 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm dizzy: is there something wrong here: Jason_Sebastian_Russo. Tony (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
of this... I must say that's one of the dafter suggestions for a block I've seen in a while, though. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. I am quite surprised to see your stances on these issues, maybe I have you mixed up with someone else :).
Ikip
01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(refactored) Ikip 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nsaa ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You ask for talk-page interaction - but you haven't made any (since the first)... You yourself has stated on talk, that you have no idea about the weight of this issue.... Are you aware that there is only one reliable source on this? Have you checked the references? Have you also noticed that despite mentions on talk about McKitrick and Coleman, these two aren't stating support? Do please explain how you can determine WP:WEIGHT on this basis on talk. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit-
We are (god willing) wrapping up a debate on the term Creation Myth at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I'd just like to point out an excerpt from WP:RNPOV:
"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."
Creation Myth, in its formal meaning (the only one used), is not inherently biased, and makes no judgment of truth or falsehood. As it is supported by the vast majority of scholarly sources, there is no bias in using it. As one editor put it, it would be FAR more biased to use the 'kid gloves' when talking about the christian creation myth, but call OTHER creation myths by that term. -- King Öomie 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur. I think that the {{notability|Bio}} tag is no longer needed there, as the article contains various references proving notability of the subject. I'm quite familiar with the Czech culture and I have some knowledge of Wikipedia notability requirements. Nebřenský meets them as the leader of a notable band Vltava, member of an important theatre ensemble Sklep, and actor in multiple notable films. All of the subjects are known mainly in the Czech context, but they qualify also for the English Wikipedia. If your concerns aren't resolved to your satisfaction (I'm talking about the notability of mentioned red links), please ask at the relevant forum - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic. Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting (i.e deleting) my additions to this section. Less information, and less clarity, are certainly better. :-| Have fun with your wikitoy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.95.54 ( talk) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I'm a new contributor still feeling my way through the applications, processes and protocols.
What I'm trying to do right now is to start a brief, cordial conversation with you about extending Godel's incompleteness theorem to formal systems other than those that are mathematically based. If this talk page is the incorrect forum / mechanism / way to initiate the conversation, please forgive my ignorance. And please let me know what would be more appropriate.
Re extending incompleteness to language, as you know I wrote a short paragraph for inclusion on the Godel page, which you subsequently deleted. I have no problem with that. But I do take this opportunity to put the case in slightly more detail, as follows:
The major difference between a formal system eg arithmetic vs language is that the former, being a system based on mathematics, involves statements that can be evaluated as true or false against the axioms comprising the foundation of the system. If arithmetic is discreet, language is continuous. If arithmetic is a particle, language is a wave. Arithmetic digital, language analogue.
Obviously, language statements can be evaluated as true or false: eg "the Earth revolves around the moon" is a false statement. But the falsity or otherwise of that particular statement is decided by virtue of reference to data and/or axioms that are not part of language itself, but rather are part of such formal systems as astronomy and physics. So, in a trivial way, proving the consistency and/or completeness and/or truth of language statements does indeed involve stepping outside of the system of language. But, as I say, that is a trivial example, and not really what I have in mind.
So what then is the equivalent in language for "true", "false", "consistent" "complete" "axiom" etc? It is MEANING. In the context of language, MEANING is the proxy for those characteristics (eg the characteristic of being built upon axioms) that in mathematically based formal systems enable incompleteness theory validly to be applied to them. It is only by stepping outside of language into a metasystem (at a higher level of abstraction) that the meaning of words can definitively be assessed for consistency and completeness, clarity and unambiguity.
Semiotics alerts us to the issues arising from the relationships between the SIGN, the SIGNIFIER, and the thing that is SIGNIFIED; between the symbol and the thing it symbolises; and most of all, between the sign, the thing that is signified, and the NAME of the thing. At its crudest and simplest, the issue relates to the difference between the attributes of the thing, the name of the thing, the word for the thing, and the thing itself.
Language is a labelling system, and words are labels. Sometimes people use a different label than has been used previously to describe the same thing, or a different label to that which another person applies to the same thing. It's called "disagreement" but actually it is just different styles of labelling. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "through the looking glass", a word means whatever the utterer of the word believes the word to mean, no more and no less. And that is an issue of semantics that cannot be resolved within language.
In English, "dog" is the word for a creature referred to (signified as) "Canis lupus familiaris". But say that I, for whatever reason, use the word "ooga-booga" to refer to Canis lupus familiaris. I'm not wrong. My statement is not wrong. The word "dog" itself came into usage through a similar process (ie the process whereby meaning is allocated to "words" in the first place.) My doggish statement may not be wrong or incorrect as such, but it certainly would preclude my having a meaningful conversation with another person or persons about Canis lupus familiaris.
Better example: consider the following 6 statements: 1. "Neptune is the god of the sea" vs 2. "Poseidon is the god of the sea" vs 3. "There is only one God, named Jehovah" vs 4. "...named Allah" vs 5. "...named Ahura Mazda" vs 6. "there is no God or gods, only matter and energy; fermions and bosons."
In 1 vs 2, there is disagreement about the NAME of the thing, and agreement about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= being-a-god-of-the-sea).
Statements 3, 4 and 5 disagree amongst themselves as to the name of the thing. And each of 3, 4, and 5 disagrees with both 1 and 2 about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= deity-is- one vs deity-is-many").
The best example arises from a comparison of 3 and 6, as follows:
Statement 3 is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition. Statement 6 is the atheistic position, (ideally adopted by people who understand physics!). The attributes of the thing in the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition are: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence*. To put it in plain words, the people embracing 3 believe that the thing for which the word is "god" in the English language is everywhere, all-knowing and all-powerful. And the people embracing 6 believe there is a thing for which the word in the language of English is "Universe", and that there is nothing outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipresent). And that there is no knowledge that is known outside the Universe; all knowledge is known inside the Universe (therefore the Universe is all-knowing). And that there are forces and powers within the Universe (eg Gravity, Electromagnetism) but there are no forces or powers outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipotent).
So, in the example above, there is agreeement between the atheist and the believer about the attributes of the thing (the three omni...'s). However, there is disagreement about the word (label) to be used for (to be applied to) the thing (ie "God" vs "the Universe"). And there is disagreement about the name of thing: For the believer, the name of the thing is "Jehovah". For the atheist, the thing has no name, but if the thing had to have a name, "ooga booga" would be just as valid as "Jehovah" or "Allah" or "Brahman" or "Fred Bloggs". There's no correctness or incorrectness in assigning names. Nor is there such a thing as correctness or incorrectness in allocating words. The words in English "help" and "assist" are different in spelling and origin, but both may validly be attached to the same thing. And let's not get into examples involving multiple different languages -- that's too complex for my simple brain. (It's language's "hard" problem.)
Fairly recently the English word "cougar" has been adopted to refer to an older woman seeking a relationship with a younger man. Previously, the only valid thing to which the word "cougar" could validly be attached was a large, tawny cat, Felis concolor. Same word, two different meanings, of which the latter has recently been invented by a language user or users.
In all of the above examples, there can be no valid endorsement or rejection of MEANING inside the formal system of language. In order to validate the meaning of words, one has to step outside of language. Within language as a system, there can never be a "true" or "false" meaning: It's the prerogative of the language user to choose a word (and/or invent a new word) to apply to a thing. The choices that language users make often result in poor communication with other language users. New words are constantly being invented, and it can take a while before the use of the new word is known, understood and accepted broadly by language users in general. And new meanings are constantly being invented for existing words, and it can take a while before the new meaning is accepted as being a valid application of the word (label).
The incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the meanings of words cannot, are not, and never will be resolved within the system of language itself. In language, "meaning" is the equivalent of "correctness" in Arithmetic.
What do you think?
Cheers, Nevestisme ( talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.
Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!
Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.
Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Simple reason why I'm not willing to create the redirects: they're already there! 4 T C 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you're wondering, my response is not an attempt at playing dumb; I really can't fathom out quite what I've done to provoke your wrath, or how I've misinterpreted or misrepresented you. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions. Kransky ( talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. Another admin has added a tag here and deserves an answer. (Frankly I find it mildly disruptive that they didn't ask on the talk page first, but that's just my opinion.) I don't know who added that content, and the enormity of the numbers resulting from homeopathic dilutions does astound me, so I really don't know the answer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, please see my response to your comment on Electron Configuration Talk page. Drova ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, re our previous correspondence, I can't source the concept --- other than to say it's mine, and published on my blog. This is to ask a favor of you: to review the blog post from a technical point of view, especially the key concepts including "incompleteness" and "inconsistency". If anyone can spot the weaknesses and/or inaccuracies in the blog post, it would be you.
I understand you may not have the time or inclination, so no hard feelings if you can't or won't do it. But I would be extremely appreciative if you could. Even just a 5 minute scan would be great. It's relatively short.
Anyway, if you could, that would be great---you could leave your comments on the blog post itself.
Here's the link: http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com/2010/02/birth-of-ooga-booga-what-does-it-really.html
regards
Nevestisme ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i added this to the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ken_Salazar&oldid=343568530
i have not done this before, so i will most likely make a number of mistakes.
my question is:
can i edit an article to relay information about a individual like ken salazar if his position in the government includes a decision made under his administation to allow for the killing of wolves (for whatever reason) ... ?
for example, what i wrote is generalized, but none the less true.
if i had written something like 'As secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar signed an order on Feb 20, 2010 that now allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of wolves ...'
would that have been acceptable, or does it place ken s. in a negative light?
thank you,
eric s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixerics61 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are requested on a discussion about whether or not a particular page is a disambiguation page or a stub here. Neelix ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, have updated my post, contains no persons names. All content is factual, am happy to put in references to support. Timleroy ( talk) 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version of the page is inaccurate. Cauchy did not define continuity in terms of real inequalities, as the page currently implies. This was the reason for my edit. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I started discussion on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) regarding its inclusion. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thisisborin9 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hey, thanks for reverting the "nonsense" linkspam on my talkpage. Was quite confused for several seconds when I saw it. Thisis borin9 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
(moved to User talk:RyanRetroWickawack#Read the article) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You flagged a comment of mine as "disputed." What don't you agree with? It's true that when I cut & pasted the url for the reference, somehow part of the url got lost; however if you had clicked on "Binet formulas" you would have gotten to the right point.
A more detailed argument is given in http://www.amazon.com/Fibonacci-Sequence-Beyond-Bruce-Gilson/dp/1449974112, (p.9 ff.) though it would be frowned upon for me to plug my own book in my edit. -- BRG ( talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please let the previous edition I did of Patriarch Bartholomeos I (Bartholomew I), actually Vartholomeos as the orginial Greek letter "B" is pronounced as "V", but the letter had a different ponunciation in latin, and passed to all western languages. There are significant mistakes. For instance his first name is Dimitrios, and not Demetrios. This is so latin and westencentric. Practically every Greek personal names and place names are unfairly always latinized by westerners, like his original first name and patriarchal name for instance. And I do not mean the English translation of Patriarch Bartholomeos I. The "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Greece" is also not correct, because it refers to the country of Greece, and not to ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians, but are citizens of other countries. Otherwise a new category for ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians should be created. That is why it should be "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Turkey". Nor is he from Istanbul. He came there as a young adult. He is a native of the island of Imbros in Çanakkale Province.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.66.14 ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But really. I don't have to have "Oppose" in front of my comment in order for it to be understood, do I?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You show unusual and unfair bias against Dr. Steven Jones in your comment:
"I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC) "
You removed the statement about his being Professor Emeritus, supported by the BYU.edu world wide web page with his Curriculum Vitae. This is simply a fact, and should be included.
Professor Emeritus is defined in Wikipedia, as a full professor who retires in good standing.
Although Dr. Jones retired in 2006, the BYU.edu web site continues to update his CV, with his latest research, such as the one about Active Thermitic Material on September 2009. Obviously, BYU and Dr. Jones have a good relationship. BYU is under no obligation to post references to his articles about the WTC, especially after he retired. They would not do so, unless they respected his research.
The first paragraph about a living person should be about something major that they have done, not some dubious interpretation about an unsourced arrangement that was private between the parties involved. We have no idea what went on in their meeting, and it is inappropriate to speculate on Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that User:ClimateGate and User:Tony1 mentioned you (!) as an example at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Support. I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but I thought you might want the opportunity to defend yourself if necessary.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
God knows, I'm way open to any ideas. [redacted] [I]n August [...] Neil Brick's S.M.A.R.T conference occurrs. [redacted] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the CMT citation that you tagged with {{ verify credibility}}: I would think that the website of a major television network would be reputable when it comes to sourcing information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
[4]-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There may be no context available on Wikipedia as of yet, but removing it completely was a bit radical. Please leave it available while myself and the rest of the developers build context on Wikipedia to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.17 ( talk) 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review destructive edits to Teabagging by User:68.25.103.189. - 12.7.202.2 ( talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems a bit of a red flag. The fellow referenced has written some information based books, but I still don't know if it's legit. Auntie E. ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So you believe the Constitution is grammatically incorrect when it refers to "the Congress" (e.g., here)? SMP0328. ( talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, I notice that you removed two referenced and seemingly topic-appropriate items from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here is the first one you removed: "But some of those questioning the government's findings don't consider themselves extremists. "They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."(CBS News reference at http://web.archive.org/web/20071224135836/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml Here is the second one: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation into the causes of the three World Trade Center building collapses." (Washington Times reference at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns "According to the group's website, 1114 architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition." (A&E for 911 Truth home page reference at http://www.ae911truth.org/ You claimed the first was removed because it was unsourced, but there is a news source. You claimed the second gives the group A&E for 911 Truth undue weight, but that was the only group mentioned in the referenced news article. There is a discussion in process on the article's discussion page. Please take part in this discussion before removing any more referenced material. Thank you. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
[5] It`s not the source, it`s an entire section devoted to three or four lines of text, all i did was remove the section and put it at the bottom of the lede mark nutley ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
1 Reason for this note Recently I added to text on Alex Jones, which (I am postulating) you rescinded, stating it did not appear to be constructive. I think we are all interested in the truth. Please tell me what was untrue about what I wrote.
2 Instant Messaging on WikiPedia? It would be helpful if WikiPedia had a way for a recipient to immediately reply to a post someone made (in this case, you). This is the first time I have ever received a comment, and had reason to reply to someone. I was able to track your user page and to post this message here.
3 Quality and Style of Information, _Functionality_, Truth Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but this authoritarian style is, most probably, going to adhere to the most commonly accepted truths, including rewrites of history, even if Wikipedia includes among its subjects such luminaries as Noam Chomsky. In absence of information - or even awareness that there exists controversies - a pupil is likely to swallow whatever is put before him at face value, without even the courtesy of being able to make up his mind. I am beginning to view and make use of discussion pages. I have not yet seen if the Discussion pages are used to keep up with elements of 'controversy'. It occurs to me that, together with any pronouncements, if alternate points of view are not presented, then any media is tantamount to propaganda. I read that you are Libertarian, as I am sure most of us are, who are true and old supporters of the Internet. Altho I have not read up on the perspectives of those who created WikiPedia, I would assume statistically that they probably are, as well. And I am gathering a perspective on the format of WikiPedia, and as this awareness continues, I see omissions (user-generated content), as well as constant and consistent bias, slanted towards the status quo. As we can see with the recent banking disasters, just because someone has a lot of money, or is 'accepted', or mainstream, this 'might' does not make right. History validates this, altho not necessarily the textbooks that are rewritten.
Are we interested the truth? Is Wikipedia interested in the truth? As it involves more than one person (more than just me), I cannot answer these questions when plural people are involved.
Even if we are committed to the truth, problems ensue. If a person's awareness is purely academic, he is merely a dis-interested reporter, without any actual knowledge of the fact(s). I think both of us would say that a carpenter is more qualified to speak on the subject of carpentry, than a person who has only read or heard of or discussed carpentry. An academic, a mere, student should not be the one to dictate to the general public what a subject is. This is pure speculation. ("Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." This is a sad statement, but largely relevant. It reflects the level of our remuneration and respect for teaching.)
I have several backgrounds. One of them is medicine/health. I have close to 40 years experience in what works in these regards. Yet, my experience in medicine/health will not be the same as another's, especially if he is only 'mainstream'. For example, the AMA has been convicted of fraud. It is obvious they have a confirmed bias, and are something else other than 'scientific'. Based on this, we can clearly confirm corruption of science. Most doctors are not real students, because they are not involved in researching the medical systems that have been employed in centuries or millennia past. In this sense, they are indeed only 'practicing', and have 'opinions'. Also, in strict truth, they promote 'remedies', and do not admit to 'cures', nor do they allow others the First Amendment to speak about 'cures'.
Arthur, in these many years I see what works, and what does not work. I have been interested in the Merovingian's 'Why?' Looking for answers, I have found them. I was compelled to look past the veil of mediocrity and ignorance. In doing this, I found my answers. There was no other way. Either I accepted and allowed and promoted the non-answers of the currently-in-force (literally) medical profession, and their abysmal track record, or I got down to brass tacks and did some research. I chose to find out. Abraham Lincoln made remarks to the effect that what you search for, you will find. Without searching and remaining aware of a possibility, it is unlikely you will be aware of the real meaning and import of something, even if it does cross your path. Knowing what works, and being able to do it, gives one power. This type of power is also used by the media forces (one can add AMA to that list) who are an entity existing to perpetuate itself. But this is not valid if they harm others. The media forces are in business to make money. Thus, they are materialistic in nature. Materialism, the making of money, is their #1 objective, and media is the means they use to do it. Vision-Mission-Objective. Motive-Means-Opportunity. Manipulation is what they 'know' how to do, and keep themselves in power by doing it. They are successful by their own definition. But what if one does not define 'success' as having the same statistical sicknesses and disease as the average person in the population? What if one does not desire to be 'mediocre'? What if one desires 'health'? This is not taught in the textbooks. In the textbooks, lots of little facts are doled out, as by rote. Yet, the big picture is left up to the student to piece together. But the student is so busy continuing on with the prevailing winds and dishing out the popular version of drugs and 'interventions' and 'invasiveness' that he takes little time to question the whether the 'authority' he has on supposedly 'good authority', or good faith, promulgated by his inherited teaching is, in fact, supreme, or only a statistical truth, all dependent on subsuming ONE set of assumptions.
Humans sit in a crossroads. Most of what they know is rooted in the shallow past, as shallow as the grave they shall soon occupy. Allopathic doctors occupy this grave even sooner than the common populace. Perforce, they do not have a functional handle on health at all. Experience shows they do not empirically and scientifically conform to the dictates of health. They are thus examples and proponents of a different system than pure health. So, do they speak from an advanced experience of health? No, they demonstrably do not. If fact, they demonstrate the opposite. This is not a conundrum. This is quid pro quo. Nature proves the thing of itself. It is what it is.
Arthur, I don't know you. So I can't claim to understand you. I have found, however, that I can trust Nature, if I trust myself to become more aware of it. I would say that this principle works for everyone. And I also say that, unless you can do something, you are not qualified to make pronouncements about it. I specifically say this because I have recently seen the debates about amateurism versus professionalism. And, as you can see by this note, I believe those who can do something should be allowed to speak about it, whether it is motorcycle design and repair or foreign travel or any discipline. I also think that it is not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask questions about the veracity or consistency of a group of people following a given discipline, as to what kind of efficacy that discipline has upon its followers.
Track record is track record. With regard to physical health, most children (and I include adults who are/were still children) have not done much in the way of scientific experimentation with regard to the input = output equation of diet. In science, we believe in the equations of cause and effect. Yet, how many have actually done serious experimentation on this subject? As far as the human population is concerned, we have the Merck Manual to give us statistics. Sad statistics these are. Clearly, consumption of animal and synthetic fats builds up on the vascular system, causes circulation problems, heart problems, lung problems; the leading causes of death. Yet, your average family doctor does not follow the dictates of Primum Non Nocere, causing no harm, and does not explain to his patients the damage done thru consumption of animal products. Neither does he recommend to stop this practice, and clean up his patients' lives. Why? Would there be a conflict of interest against his profession, if his clients were healthy? What would his $500,000 tuition be worth, if his clients had no need to come to him? If his clients were well, he'd be out of a job. If you are aware of the status of doctors in China centuries ago, you would be aware that they were paid only if their patients were NOT sick. Doctors were paid on the basis of performance, and were NOT paid if their methods fail. These days, it exactly the opposite. Doctors make money when their patients are sick. This is designing to fail, inviting corruption. This is negative science. The incentives are all wrong. It is a system designed to fail. This system follows the law of entropy, as do the doctors that practice it, who are demonstrably worse than average in the aspect of health. One gets what he deserves.
I have heard song writers, and many ordinary people say, "We are not meant to know." If we are not meant to learn and grow, then why are we alive, if we are only meant to suffer? If there is no way out, why should we even try? Why not cut your loses and give up now, ahead of the game?
Yes, while entropy is, indeed, a force to be reckoned with, nevertheless, if there is something else than fatalism and chaos in the world, then we must strive for it. Since the human being is clearly a construct following a higher Order or organization, then progress, if not complexity, is possible. If this kind of success is possible, it stands to reason that an even higher level of success is reachable. If it is reachable, then development demands we must strive for it. Alfred Korzybski, b1879-07-03, writes of 3 levels of Organization, plus more can be inferred. Plants are Energy Binders. Animals are Territory Binders. Humans are Time Binders. This is not speculative. Plants, animals, humans actually DO these things. So we are not talking theory or mere academics, here. We are not talking about first order logic or first order predicate calculus of possibilities, but rather Lambda Calculus, functionality, what works.
In my years of following health, I have learned. Where once I was aware of what allopaths were capable of doing at the time (which has not functionally or substantially changed over these decades), I have since become aware of better methods. You can't stand still in awareness and grow. Effort has to be made. I've been interested in making that effort. While in grade school and high school I moved forward at the rate of two years every year, as measured by the national scholastic tests. I have not stopped. Modern 'medical' science does not progress at this rate. Not even computing science moves forward this rapidly. In decades past, I was following artificial intelligence together with psychology and computing science and medical research, and speculating on simulation languages. I found that the human functionality in psychology can be described as programs that can be modeled in lambda calculus. Thus written as an equation, they can be more clearly understood. I have since picked up neurolingustic programming, which was developed during the same time I was working on developing functional models of psychology. I developed a successor to NLP, but found it functionally a more powerful technology than the average self- or group-motivated person could be safely entrusted to use. Only the more developed ecology aspect of this system am I free to openly talk about.
An exception to the 'sitting still' rule is meditation. To this end, I'd like to point out Walter Russell. If you've not read him, I suggest you do. Same with Noam Chomsky. Read most or all of everything they wrote will expectedly serve you well.
So my two cents are: If you know what you are doing, you can do it. And if you can do it, then you can talk about it. Only in that position are you in the position of being able to teach. As Randolph Stone said, "What works, works!" I'd go with that!
Let me know what the official policies are with respect to WikiPedia. I'm sure on this end that we'd all like to know and understand. Perhaps there are other alternatives to WikiPedia that are broader in scope and encourage more collateral understanding. Please point them out.
If I can be any help to you in your quest for growth, please let me know. As I am rather new to being involved in WikiPedia on a formal level, I have not posted my interests, and have not even been to my user page. Perhaps I will figure this out in short order. I haven't taken any tutorials, as yet. Perhaps you can give me some suggestions or links?
I look forward to the future development of WikiPedia and other developing models.
I hope I will get a response to any message you will write, as long as I am logged in to WikiPedia, as I would very much like to hear your reply.
Regards ~Mardana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardana ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not know there were other instances of total progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings. Can you please provide me with your examples? - Tzaquiel ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I'm commenting on your edit summary here, rather than the article's talkpage, b/c I assume this is just an oversight on your part. Anyways the cited Salon.com article does specifically mention Exxon funding the Center: "The father and son team of Sherwood and Craig Idso hail from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., which has also received money from ExxonMobil," from page 2 of the article. Yilloslime T C 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Time to do something about this idiot? Has been trolling the premises a bit too much, and the blatant advocacy is not acceptable (imho). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello - you have removed my addition to the talk page which amazes me. Surely talk page contributions should, unless spam / vandalism etc, be free from such censorship? As a mathematician you should see that what I submitted was factually correct and a valid point of view, not to say demonstrably correct. DesmondW ( talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain why my edit was not totally correct on the trig article, just for my own clarity. Bgreise24 ( talk) 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
AH, I see. So technically speaking 2pi is a period of tangent. I just thought it should be made clear that it was not THE period. I'm glad we came to a wording that satisfies both scenarios. That was my first edit btw, so thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.115.136 ( talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILYsock (TALK) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Could you please explain why this reference and link to source were removed? I read your message about my "experiment" with Wikipedia, however, the information I submitted is true, relevant and verifiable by source. I realize that this is my first contribution, but your edit message seemed a bit of a canned response and I was hoping you could perhaps clarify your reasoning for its irrelevance. Thank you. Dustin Thacker Dlthacker ( talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, FYI: I refactored your comment about Brian Pesta being fringe. I have a strict 'no commenting on other editors' rule in that mediation (and it is sorely needed) so while I'm glad you've come to participate, I do need you to stick with the same mediation rules that everyone else is following. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I think you missed the absence of a "not" here, since being an ancestor of is not transitive. Paul August ☎ 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this: "Tucker has developed the Strength Of Case Scale (SOCS), which evaluates what Tucker sees as four aspects of potential cases of reincarnation" (my addition being "what Tucker sees as")? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin, as I assume you are well aware, that article is currently under a 1 revert restriction ("Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period"), which I believe you have violated by the following two edits:
With both edits, you re-added the vague and contentious (see also [8]) term "government organisations". I hope you will be able to address my concerns in the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which I had reviewed before making my edit), especially by naming other "such" government organizations.
Here, I'd like to ask you something else: Why did you revert my correction of the NYTimes link? Do you see any advantages in the format
instead of
Or did you just not take the time to examine my edit fully before reverting?
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I do not see how the word "vindicated" is "peacock". Your preferred "cleared" is not really a synonym. I took great pains to add a citation directly to that word, thereby replacing the "peacock" tag. The source cited specifically says they were vindicated. That's verifiableand as we know the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, would you please be a little more tolerant of the newbies? All s/he did was offer some links on the talk page. Yea, they are not RS, but everyone deserves a chance to learn without feeling bad. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have previously complained that many of the articles posted on individual biographies, especially of politicians, and of various organizations exhibit profound bias toward their own ideological position. Most of the time I come up to such a page, I leave a flag and perhaps a note on the discussion page. Yesterday, I chose to do otherwise and have gone through a number of sources to update and correct blatant biases in a couple of articles. One was Pete Wilson, former governor of California. The other was Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is the oil industry version of the Tobacco Institute. Both articles had been written largely with platitudes, in glowing tone about the good that has been done by these paragons of wisdom and public service. Sarcasm aside, there had to be a change. Encyclopedic biographies are not supposed to be hagographies and allowing single-issue organizations to submit their propaganda as referenced material is simply inconceivable. I spent a lot of time on these two revisions, checking and rechecking sources and posting only the information that I either knew to be factual or that was directly quoted from the sources. If I might have occasionally posted something that was not neutral, it was largely because of the frustration with hagiographers combined with the volume of information that needed attention--believing that any of us are so pure at heart that we can get away with a substantial volume of work without exhibiting occasional biases.
I tried the posts to be neutral, but, since virtually all information on both pages was heavily biased, much of what I inserted could be seen as criticism. Unfortunately, some neutral information that does not jibe with the myth will always be seen as biased criticism by supporters. No exceptions here.
My corrections on Pete Wilson saw a minor correction by one "Arthur Rubin"--a correction that appears to be valid and one that I missed because I left alone (aside from minor grammatical fixes) a piece of information posted previously. In this case, assuming the revised version is accurate, we can easily agree. However, later today, virtually entire portions of the page were removed by user "JoinArnold" who has had a history of similar behavior on the same page. Basically, he struck down ALL information that was critical of Pete Wilson's performance as Governor and even took out direct quotations from Wilson himself concerning serious issues and important mileposts. If JoinArnold is not banned from posting for his antics, it will be a travesty.
Then I looked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute page. To my concern, I found a full reversal posted by the same "Arthur Rubin", purportedly removing bias. Upon further review, I noticed that some wording could have been improved to avoid bias, but the changes where I made them needed to be made. A blank reversal was simply unjustified. I only want to mention a couple of instances.
First the biases. At one point, I appended the phrase "...leading critics to attack CEI as representing conservative and corporate polluter interests" to a list of organization funders. Although the claim that the funding came from the foundations that support exclusively conservative causes (Scaife, Earhart), and companies that are usually identified as opponents of "environmental causes" (Ford, ExxonMobil, Pfizer), perhaps it was gratuitous of me to actually connect the dots and I should have just left links to the respective Wiki pages, if they exist. Removing this particular line would have been reasonable, although I am not sure it was a bias on my part (as the information is accurate).
Second, I replaced the word "fame" with "infamy" in the sentence, "CEI's global warming policy activities gained infamy as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials." Again, my correction is accurate. The CEI's commercial made an absurd claim that increased carbon dioxide production is beneficial to the planet, accentuated by an equally absurd punchline, "They call it pollution. We call it LIFE." If they said that Earth was flat, no one would have minded describing the attention as "infamy". But if "infamy" is biased, so is "fame". Both are value-laden. "Notoriety" is more neutral in some contexts and less neutral in others. Perhaps "gained attention" would be the most neutral improvement--whatever it may be, it should not be "fame". So, please, make the correction--a meaningful correction--but don't assume that some hack is sitting at the computer trying to poison the well.
I do take back one correction fully. I replaced words "said of" as the verb in the sentence, "In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith offered a much derided opinion on global warming." Smith's opinion was indeed much derided, but it was not universally derided. So, "said" is probably as close to neutral as we are going to get, although I probably would have preferred "stated". On the contrary, in another sentence, I replaced "stating" with "claiming". The word "claiming" is not value-laden--it represents someone making an unsubstantiated statement, which is exactly what happened here: "It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government." This sentence corresponds to an unsubstantiated, self-promoting claim on the CEI's website. It is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, meant to challenge those who do not see it as valid. In other words, it is a claim. I fully stand by the correction I made here.
Another absurd correction that someone made earlier is replacing the word "consumers" with "humans". "Humans" is a word from the domain of science fiction, not encyclopedic discourse. In encyclopedias, we usually say "people" unless we want to specify the kind of people we are talking about, e.g., consumers. I have no problem with "consumers" being gone, but replacing it with "humans" is puerile. If I were grading student papers (which I do, occasionally), I would purge it. If I were editing a manuscript (which I do professionally all the time), I would have corrected it. So I did the same here--the word "humans" in this context is absolutely inappropriate. Reverting the entire revision restores "humans" back where it was. Not good!
Another idiotic correction made previously was replacing CO2 with CO2. No, sorry, the symbol you are looking for is CO2. CO2 is a convenience usually reserved for a typewriter (and for a newspaper headline). Oh? We are not working on a typewriter? Then we should not be using CO2 and place the correct symbol in its place: CO2. Again, not good!
I am not going to go through every thoughtless "correction" that a full reversion by "Arthur Rubin" produced. But my advice to Arthur Rubin is, don't assume that others are dumber than you or that they are out to get you or someone else. Thoughtful corrections require thoughtful further corrections, not a magic reversion keystroke. And a thoughtful editor must also recognize that some neutral, apparently objective words can become weasel words in some contexts (as "free-market" is on the CEI page--it is not neutral, it's a dog-whistle term).
Please take that under advisement as you return to CEI page, as you promised. And, if you have such an opportunity, please help ban JoinArnold from posting partisan scribbles. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
You made an RV at Types of Rape just recently. There's some discussion going on around that at the talk page that is relevant to this. Maybe you can contribute there as well? Thepm ( talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edit. Surely, "recovered memory" and "repressed memory" are not the same thing. The former is the later, but not vice versa. -- Taku ( talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand licensing. Wikipedia and CZ are licensed under cc-by-sa. Therefore you can freely mix contents with attributions of course. But we're giving credits. Finally, the consensus can change. If you have a problem with the existence of the article, then the correct path is to take it to fad. Please try to be more constructive. You're not being reasonable. -- Taku ( talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Well-formed formula. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
You are good people, trying to help clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles. Guy ( Help!) 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
Hey Arthur,
I'm new here so maybe I'm off-base, but there are a lot of links being thrown into articles like pickup artist and The Game by Neil Strauss that are purely commercial. Is there a way to set some sort of alert for these? Namely afcadamlyons.net and thegameneilstrauss.com (among others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HateToLoveMe ( talk • contribs) 01:33, April 13, 2010
They both appeared together in TV shows at that time, and were covered by British press, so I think it was as notable as other parts of the Uri Geller article. However, maybe you can move the sentence to a better place of the article. -- Jordiferrer ( talk) 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Jag förstår din oro, men din felaktig bedömning av den nordamerikanska unionen bygger på dina falska amerikanska känslor. Som jag påpekade, är du som talar engelska, vilket är olyckligt, men för att underlätta din omräkning till svenska språket, jag ska hjälpa dig att anpassa sig till befälhavaren språket. Något sätt, finns det inget sätt att du vet vad du pratar om. Förhållandet med roboten skall bekräftas bara tills du accepterar att din inblandning i den svenska affärer inte kommer att förbli ostraffade. Detta är din enda varning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan ( talk • contribs) 00:58, March 23, 2010
Arthur, FYI, Alexander Razborov is one of the world's foremost CS theorists. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.
In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: I posted draft revisions for the U.S. dollar "Value" section in my sandbox. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCupertino/Sandbox JasonCupertino ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As an administrator I find it unhelpful to Wikipedia that you reverted back to an inaccurate edit (without even any discussion no less). In England we have a parliamentary system, NOT a parliamentary democracy. I don't profess to be knowledgeable about the Political system in California. Please see the Wikipedia article Democracy. Thanks. Vexorg ( talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see your just going through my contribs and having a moment. I have reverted you revert because your reversion was removing accurate information. <sigh> Vexorg ( talk) 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted some edits on the Decimal page, with the comment that "none of the sources are reliable". One of the sources was The Mathematical Intelligencer, which I would have assumed to be reliable, i.e., I thought that although it was less technical, it was meant to be no less scholarly than Springer's other journals.
Could you confirm this one way or the other for me? Many thanks.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, first, please check out Chinese numerals. Chinese shí (=10) has no positional value and so have many other Chinese numerals, neither. For self-evident facts like these, there are no more reference necessary than for pointing out that the Pyramids of Gizeh are of pyramidonal shape. About the other reference, why shouldn't it be not reliable? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Decimal. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Gun Powder Ma (
talk)
22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You recently reversed an edit I had made to "Aliyot" being redirected to "Torah Reading" from the original link which was to "Aliyah". I am simply asking why my edit was reversed seeing as I though the links page was inaccurate. Do you want me to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin1414141414141414 ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
I would like to know why you removed my additions to the Sierra Club page pertaining to the recent (and important) controversies on the widely-agreed upon 350ppm emissions targets and Carl Pope's implicit endorsement of Clorox. These were not hit pieces, but fully-referenced and legitimate additions to the "controversy" section. I have been a Sierra Club member on and off for many years and have no particular agenda against them or Carl Pope; I just read read some interesting articles in The Nation and, in lesser detail, in Mother Jones that I felt were relevant to an overall view of the club. My edits and references were removed without comment or justification. I would like an explanation. Thank you. DuendeThumb ( talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reported Canada Jack for edit-warring and your name was mentioned in reference to past conduct. Be advised I did not report you, but your conduct may be questioned as a result.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You said not to add trivia to the Number 22 page. However, the page is loaded with trivia (what are Jersey Numbers, and how many chapters in Revelations?). My entry was just a test to see if the data would be accepted, and quite an interesting piece of knowledge for people interested in studying the Bible. I don't see why it is not fitting for the Religious heading. Please explain how my entry is different from what is already posted there.
Thanks FarAwayBen ( talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)FarAwayBen
Thanks for the references. That's useful information for me. I didn't did deep enough into the Guide. I'll try out a couple that should fit within the guidelines in the sandbox and then post them to see if they are ok. I'll try to do more homework in the future.
The numbers on jerseys seems frivolous. It would make more sense to note something like "there have only been 22 triple plays/perfect games, etc in baseball history" Something to that effect. Am I getting the right idea? I'll read the guide. I appreciate the feedback. FarAwayBen ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I originally inserted this information in here some time ago based on world-wide raw birth rate or fertility rate data I ran accross. In retrospect, the years I used were deciphered by POV. This time I tried to get some published data on baby booms in various countries, which resulted in the latest edit. For example, I don't think anyone in Ireland considers their baby boom from 1946-1982, though the data may suggest that (to some). Ledboots ( talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, I was just wondering why my edit of the correct calculations were reverted to the old wrong ones, is this just normal procedure for every edit or is something else up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.126.185 ( talk)
I am sorry, you are completely correct, I was skimming the article for something else when that paragraph stood out, I had simply forgotten that oldtime notation. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please see Talk:Route inspection problem for a discussion of common graph-theoretical terminology, specifically path, trail, walk, and circuit. Thank you. Zaslav ( talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I signed your comment on AN/I you forgot to sign it so I had to hunt through to find out who wrote it. I appreciate the proposal. I made a comment on it (and gave it its own subsection since its a concrete proposal. I mostly agree with what you wrote.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully documented all my work on Jagger's talkpage. My work came from a request by Jimbo Wales which also is documented. I posted on Jagger's talkpage that you reverted 16 citations. FYI. -- Morenooso ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I'm aware WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, however WP:V explicity states damaging information should not be left in articles on living organizations. This is often ignored for the consensus that WP:BLP applies only to people, which to my mind is crazy - it's not OK to libel individuals, but it's perfectly OK to libel groups of individuals? What's the rationale behind that? -- Insider201283 ( talk) 09:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this passage: "One of the key differences between virtual worlds and virtual events is that a virtual world is available as a persistent environment, even after the live part of the event is over", I believe the content contained at http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/download/294/248/ has been misinterpreted.
Virtual events most certainly remain available as a persistent environment after the live event is over. In fact, it's standard practice of virtual event platform vendors to keep the virtual event persistent for 90 days. While there are many differences between virtual worlds and virtual events, this is not one of them.
References: [1] http://www.foliomag.com/2009/virtual-events-come-their-own - review the section labeled "Archive Etiquette" near the end of the article.
Dshiao ( talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. You made an with a summary of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher". What was the meaning behind that summary, and why did you use the words "CalendarWatcher" in that way (with no space between the words, and with both a capital "C" and "W")? HWV258 . 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
please take a look at the last two edits on Chair by 76.122.147.156 and deal with the situation as you deem appropriate. i can't entirely dedide if he/she's a vandal or an idiot who really thinks that's relevant. thanks. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur. At the above SPI, someone is trying to recall all the problematic editing that has occurred over the past three years, and you may have some recollection of that. It is argued that some individual IPs may be persistent enough to be worth blocking. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you could really be serious here [10], and exactly what purpose you see in expressing such encouragement....
Do you really think these are correct [11]?:
All of the above are either highly subtly incorrect or highly POV... For instance the British court did not identify 9 errors - they addressed 9 claims of errors (which everywhere in the court text is in scare-quotes), the ruling is quite clear in stating that most of these aren't errors, but that many of them have contextual issues, that aren't addressed in the movie. (for instance 20 feet is entirely correct, but without the context of a timescale, it may be misleading).
It is a good thing to encourage newbies - but without addressing the problems with their contributions - you are setting them up for a meet with a hard reality later, when they haven't learned what exactly is problematic in their editing... and thus are prone to continue along the same path. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I share your concern about some of the people on the 99 range (as i've mentioned before) - but is article talkspace [12] the correct venue to vent such? As a side-issue from that, i'm rather concerned about the users who are using edit-comments to promote their viewpoints (ie. by stringing together various links not related to the edit). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I am updating Vaclav Smil's Wiki page and would like your opinion on the changes. I like to make sure i am doing it according to wiki rules.
Please advise.
Best, Olibroman 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for yor quick reply, Arthur.
I have designed his website but i will either list reliable sources for all the claims made here or delete it altogether. I will also pair down his articles to 20 (great suggestion).
Questions: can i delete a section that was posted earlier by someone else since new andmore accurate info is now available tehre?
I learned one thing form this discussion for future posts: this is not a promotional page!
Olibroman 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman ( talk • contribs)
If you have a few minutes to look over this and ensure i am using reliable sources, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "this needs references?" I'm not stating anything that hasn't already been brought up in other Wikipedia pages, as the links show in the posting itself. There are no references apparent for the two films above the posting as well. So I don't understand your need to remove this when I'm simply stating "facts" that have been brought up on numerous other Wikipedia pages. This is not speculation on my part, these are straight from the other pages. I would appreciate this being added back because it took me a good deal of time to put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliejas ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see [13] for proof of the existance of "millillion". Black Yoshi ( talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
What was your logic behind the deletion of the mention of the 2005 UK election on the page 2005? It was just when I saw the mention of the Japanese election and George Bush being inaugurated for a second term I felt that the UK election was of similiar informative value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Arthur,
Why did you revert my added red link to partial permutations in Noncommutative logic? I was under the impression that (some) red links are a welcome way of bringing attention to needed articles, and partial permutations were certainly something I wondered what was while reading the summary. I'm putting together a stub article on partial permutations now, does that make the link appropriate?
Though I've been making small changes to Wikipedia for a while, I'm still essentially a newb and would appreciate any advice.
Thanks Dranorter ( talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I stumbled upon your revert here (I'm the IP to whose rev you reverted). Just a note that I honestly don't see anything wrong with Djadvance's edits. iirc, "PUA" was introduced in The Game as the acronym for "Pickup artist", not for "pickup activity". Oh well, not a big issue. Re-revert if you care, or don't if you don't. -- 83.135.88.230 ( talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. I am new at trying to edit. Can you tell me what are the acceptable sources to make this page less biased and more factual? Astrohm ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)astrohm
Thank you for your message following your removal of my corrections to the 911: In Plane Site Corrections.
After viewing the film several times, and carrying out surrounding research, I came across the Wiki article. The article describes several criticisms of the film supported by no citations or references - as can be seen on the page. This is clear bias.
Please answer the following questions
1. Have you seen the film?
2. The article makes claims of criticisms and counter evidence, yet provides no source for these claims, no references and no citations. Is this not clear uninformed bias?
My edits were to remove these unfounded statements about the film.
I have removed the line "Films such as In Plane Site and Loose Change only refer to the smaller hole on the second floor." Before trying to restore this line, please state publicly where in the film this claim is made.
The film can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion here. I haven't suggested the film itself is evidence that it's claims are true. My edits are made to ensure that claims about the film (i.e. claims about the content of the film) are accurate.
With regards to adding citations to the claims section, this should be optional. The article should accurately describe the content of the film. It should not require citations that either prove or disprove its claims.
I am disputing the way in which the word "clear hoax" are used in this sentence: "Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of clear hoax claims – i.e., the involvement of pods, missiles, "flashes", and tanker planes – with valid questions about the attack, is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association".
This reads as if the article is stating these claims to be a clear hoax. It does not read as if it is reporting the wording used by those making a claim. In actual fact, the use of the words "clear hoax" are used by those that beleive that no aircraft ever hit the Twin Towers. Those with this viewpoint beleive the video footage of the planes was somehow faked. Perhaps using hollywood style effects etc. Therefore they suggest the footage of the planes was a hoax. DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to edit the claims section of this article so that it more accurately describes the questions the film asks. The page first stated: "The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories," I attempted to change this to: "The film examines evidence relating to the events of 11th September 2001, and questions the official explanation of what happened on that day." The aim of the film is to ask questions about the official explanation for the events. It does not ask questions about conspiracy theories. Please explain how my change is incorrect. Also, as you appear to be determined to leave the original statement in place, please tell me one of the questions the films asks about conspiracy theories. In summary, I would like to know how the previous version is more accurate than my revision.
I would also like to note why you are protecting many of articles claims of criticisms, even though no references or citations are supplied. Does this mean you think it is OK for anyone to add claim of criticism to any article without sources? DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk) 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that is silly that you will not include her in the May 2010 deaths. Your loss... she was a key sports figure... too bad, so sad that your rules have to be this silly. I have been editing on this site for almost 5 years! Jdcrackers ( talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Last night, you removed multiple external links to web calculators providing useful free services to many users of scientific functions. Many wikipedia articles on topics that have calculational aspects provide links to web calculators. On most of the articles where you removed this information, this was the only calculator link, and web calculators for many of these functions are rare. Please cite an official policy justiifcation, explain your actions in light of these points, or engage in a conversation as to why you believe this information to be inappropriate. Ichbin-dcw ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think i made a reasonable contribution, but you didn't even have the courtesy to give a good reason for reverting my edit here. Do you mind explaining yourself please before we engage in needless edit wars? I would like to reinsert this paragraph if you can't give any good objections. Thanks Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 08:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
main|Anno Domini}}
might be a reasonable approach. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)I realise that you reverted yourself, but I'm still curious as to why you changed my user page. Mk5384 ( talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. 3 things: 1/ With respect to your involvement/uninvolvement, I have left a note at the filing party's talk. 2/ In your statement, you stated you were willing to comment and become involved - your comments don't appear to suggest you are involved in the content dispute or that you have become involved since the time the request was filed. If I am mistaken, please state so. 3/ Just a reminder to sign comments you make at the Rfarb page so one can follow when you made a particular comment etc. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr Rubin,
Respectfully, I object to your having reverted my edit of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The passage in question:
"It advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory.[6]"
Linking to the article," The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, Sun, BBC2 George Gently, Sun, BBC2"
This article presumes that any "conspiracy theory" must be false from the get-go, making no reference to the detailed scientific analyses or published scientic papers of Mr. Gage and his colleagues. Rather, the Independent article is nasty, provocative and disrespectful to people who have a divergent, rational, scientic opinions about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The article is not suitable as proof of a "conspiracy theory" in this context.
You also restored the term "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com lists the following definitions of "conspiracy"
1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Clearly, these apply to the scenarios propounded by both NIST (under the direction of the Federal Government) and to that of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. In both scenarios, two or more people conspire to commit malicious acts in secret, thus rendering the characterisation "conspiracy theory" useless. You cannot differentiate the two theories on this basis and claim objectivity. Science is dispassionate, and Wikipedia should be also.
In the interest of facts, not conjecture,
Be well and thank you for you time.
Rabbitink ( talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Rabbitink
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012 apocalypticism. Since you had some involvement with the 2012 apocalypticism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Greg Bard 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You are being discussed here. Cardamon ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr Rubins,
I have spent a good part of a day expanding the page on Anniversary particlarly relating to the use of Roman fractions. I am disappointed that you reverted those changes within 30 minutes of me having made them.
Prior to me making edits on this page it had already been marked as original research. This related to discussion already on the page relating to use of multiplication of Latin terms, which another editor was clearly already questioning. While there was some merit in the proposition as already put on the page, it was not pertinent to the use of Roman fractions.
The page as it was, also proposed that pure multiplication of root terms was used for developing all Latin numerical terms - the page gave several examples (which I left intact for comparison) of how other numerals are derived - for example it suggested that 350 was derived in Latin as half of 700 - Semiseptcentennial: semi- (half) x sept(7) x cen(t)- (100) x centennial (350 years). While at face value it seemed a reasonable proposition, to develop other numbers like 925 based on this thesis would require developing Latin terms for half of 1850, or a quarter (half of a half) of 3700!
There are multiple existing sources on Wiki pages that identify how the Romans treated fractions. For example, 350 years is 3-½ centuries or in Latin terms is ½ century on the way between 3 and 4 centuries. For another example, 925 years is a quarter century more than 9 centuries.
A good description of Roman fractions is found on the Roman numerals page. This is supported by Wiki pages on other situtaions where the Romans had to deal with fractions - coins, areas, lengths, weights, etc:
Therefore, most of the substantiating references were sourced from within Wikipedia, with multiple links added, and are robust discussions that are highly cross-referenced. I had not used external references as the internal pages were well constructed and extensively cross-referenced.
I also converted the text list to a table to make the alternatives easier to compare and assess. This meant that the derivations were not lost in the Notes sections at the bottom of the page, making critical review easier. I did not remove any of the alternative derivations of previous authors/editors and placed the Roman fraction versions directly alongside the old propositions to enable the reader to compare and form their own opinion. The only proposition that I removed was the discussion made that pure multiplication was the means to implement Latin terms and which had attracted the concern of a past editor. Even then, I did recylcle the previous author's comments and highlighted that the reader just needs to be careful when they are multiplying, adding or subtracting.
I have endeavoured to highlight alternative Latin terms that might also be applicable, and have also indicated where one term was derived based on another documented example. The important issue was highlighting the way that Roman fractions were treated rather than the old discussion suggesting that multiplication was the only appropriate method. Therefore leaving the page as is was giving defective information. Your action in reverting the page to the erroneous information was therefore disappointing as was the suggestion that the information that I added was original research and not referenced. Cruickshanks ( talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping that such an organization really existed and that I could join it. [14] Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I was addressing the examplefarm tag. Anyone can tag, but does anyone take responsibility and do the thing the tag calls for? Knodeltheory ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and great job on 81 (number), you re-deleted "In mathematics." But you're the mathematician with the Erdos number, so you tell me if 81 really isn't a perfect totient number nor a member of the Mian-Chowla sequence. Knodeltheory ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Videos_as_references Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll raise your point about whether we should use the YouTube info or original publisher info when citing video. Can it wait a bit until we resolve the procedural issues? My understanding is I was to cite the original data, but I may have misunderstood. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I've ceased. Its on talk now, pending response Lihaas ( talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The deletion of Generation Alpha I find rather incorrect. Yes it is a new site and maybe I am not with it when it comes to creation of new pages hence why I would be sure that others would have added to it as they have done on other pages.
Generation Alpha (2010 to 2024) is the new generation from the Generation Z (1995 to 2009) and there should be space for Generation to build upon without editors constantly deleting what "they" believe is shoulod be there.
As far as I know this has not contravened any rules by wiki. -- Throttler ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I lied about what Arthur? All of my contributions to the article originally were entirely neutral, and then some zealot wanted to insert David Duke into the article. Your problem with it is what exactly? Greg Bard 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I'm a long time tax professional and have enhanced several articles. In trying to improve Wiki, I have tagged some articles that are advertisements (e.g., one for a Malay will writing service). I'm getting pushback such tagging on Robin Hood tax, written apparently by and about a group in UK that is lobbying for a tax on financial transactions. The WP article is clear advertising, but with some trimmings (weak pro and con) to make it not quite under the spam guideline. My comments were disputed by User:FeydHuxtable, who seems to be an admin. Am I all wet? Please have a look at the article and leave me your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dr Rubin. I'm trying to keep the Gore effect summary scrupulously neutral so I have updated your last version to read: Gore's global warming presentations in several major cities have been associated with exceptionally severe cold weather, a juxtaposition since dubbed "the Gore Effect." This approach avoids deciding who originally linked the term to the concept and declines to speculate on the motives of all those who have used the term. I appreciate that it is more vanilla than some would prefer, but IMO the summary needs to stay stable because it has become part of the AfD discussion. Is that OK with you? - Pointillist ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
WillBildUnion ( talk) 14:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you have been getting a lot of negative feedback. Whatever.
But how dare you to place a warning by claiming of edit war? The subject of the matter is relevant and is not disputed. If you keep stalking i'm gonna complain about you. Yes I am gonna complain about you.
I do see that you are a jewish, but that should not, religious beliefs should not be reasons for your admin actions.
Caesarion and son of god is talked here talk:Son of God
WillBildUnion ( talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You've deleted this section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article several times now:
We've been carrying on a discussion on the article's talk page, but no one seems to have a good reason for excluding this. I've responded point by point to your objections, and to the objections of other editors, but the reasons for deleting these lines seem to be very weak. On you last deletion diff (third one above), your reason for deletion seems to be that there is no reason to mention this in the article. Could you please expand on that on the article's talk page? It's seems obvious that this is relevant to the article. Thanks. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please be more specific than (i) no explanation for your first deletion, and (ii) "still not right" for your second deletion. What's not right about it? Duoduoduo ( talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
He posted an alternative theory on Jesus's lifetime in this talk page. No sources, has had time to present them. I'm guessing his own OR, and his actions are an attempt to get that idea some more acceptance. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I accuse you of stalking, vandalizing and terrorizing edits and of trying to dominate Wikipedia. WillBildUnion ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Giving a barnstar to Balloonman for the effort in closing Gore effect. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first:) -- SPhilbrick T 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect It is in the ref, why have you tagged as not in citation given? mark nutley ( talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that your recent edit in talk has dispatched my last response to Hypocrite. Take a look please? Thanks JakeInJoisey ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok I see that there are complaints about this guys sources and stuff. What I don't understand is if it says he made a speech or wrote an article, and you link to the video of the speech or the site where the article is posted, how is that NOT a reliable source? I mean there he is delivering the speech! Lol There is the article right in front of your eyes! It doesn't get more reliable than that. What am I not understanding? Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghamlet ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverting and setting your clock to 24 hours is exactly what 3RR is about, you appear to have no support at all for such reverting and imo it would be better to accept the changes have consensus by the fact that no one else has any issues with them. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You should consider in this case discussion first to see if your desired replacement of removed content has any support at all, you also should attempt to explain your exact issues with the content that you have added the content issues template to the whole article, you appear to have as yet not explained your exact issues so as other editors can address them and resolve them and remove the template, if you would clarify and update any issues you presently have on the talkpage , that would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the AN3 report about you, I have declined it as there are only two reverts which you did not self-revert and two reverts does not make an edit war. Please note that did the technical capacity exist to do so, I would have removed rollback from you for use of it during a content dispute. From a quick glance at your contributions, you have used it several times in the last day on non vandalism reverts [15] [16] [17]. Wikipedia:Rollback feature says that "administrators who misuse rollback may have their administrator privileges removed." Please take care to make sure that you don't roll back non-vandalism. Thank you, -- B ( talk) 12:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I made what I thought was a constructive edit to the Pro se article. If you didn't like the See also for the "The opticon" article then you should have removed just that part and not revert the whole edit. I hope you don't do this a lot because you're going to discourage good contributors. Slightsmile ( talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, all of my changes are absolutely correct. This drug is in Phase 3 FDA-approved clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are completed and done, therefore they have shown safety and efficacy. Why are you afraid of the truth being given to the public? I have all the court documents, all of the clincial trial data, and everything to prove it. I provided links to EVERYTHING I posted.
Phase 2 trials are underway in Japan also. Japan has also greenlit Phase 3 trials.
Do we need to sit down and have a face-to face meeting? What city do you live in? I'd love to sit and chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to explain yourself Arthur. You need to go point-by-point and explain why you changed perfectly verifiable data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What is you r problem? If you have a problem with the Dvorit Samid addition, delete that not ALL of it. What is your phone number? We need to have a little chat. I am not letting this or you go. I have al the legal documents to prove that Dr. Dvorit Samid filed dupe patents, (aside from the fact that they are public domain) Even if I took the time to link it all, you would just delete it - WHY? What the f*ck is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't wait Arthur. I can't wait. June 2010 (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Where? Where are they? (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
See my two posts at the end of the Notability? section of the Discussion page. Jsondow ( talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I responded there, in part by asking for an example to justify your repeated claim that my mathematical edits were "wrong" or "left the article less correct". Jsondow ( talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
hi arthur
why do you think it is an advert?
leo aka halloleo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloleo ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin,
I added new categories and some important lists of international rankings of South Korea. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin deleted this important list. As following his recommendation, I edited and added Edit summary of this article. I assume you deleted this because of its lackness of edit summary. Thus I did it. Please re-consider the deletion of this article. Thank you. Polk540 ( talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I would appreciate if you do not delete the link of "Masters program at University of Texas at Dallas" as; firstly it is not a spam and secondly it is helpful for the students interested in Supply Chain Management Degree program.
Thank you, Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinesh18omy ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
Not sure if you have had time to read the two sources I have provided. One mentions the ban, the other states the official name in the UK. The blood ban source at no time states what the official term is in the UK, only the second source, the Parliamentary Inquiry 2006. As I am sure you will agree, the UK Parliament is a reliable source. This is the official name, I have provided excellent sources, but if you are confused please contact the UK Government or NHS. One more thing, CFS/ME does not stand for two disease, it represents one, CFS/ME UYBS ( talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
not a reliable, or even reasonably credible, source
I have no problems with such a statement, but I wish you would look first and hold your gut reaction till after; you are likely to change your mind! The words symmetry and prime number distribution don't often get put in the same sentence, other than to state the two don't go together. www.primepatterns.wordpress.com - it's there for anyone to see. Credible? I am happy for people to look and comment! I think the words jawdropping, mindblowing and frankly unbelievable come to mind
WW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.240.44 ( talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
in wikipedia across pages (for eg: in Months/days) the suffix is given amiss with many editors citing WP:MOS. In the interests of consistency.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
0 (number). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
121.74.8.48 (
talk)
03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch. Not sure I would have recognized that as what it was, and it was important, clearly. I need to study the bot edit diffs more carefully instead of taking them as gold. Thank you for watching that page. So quietly!? Duff ( talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please consider commenting here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Smells like socks [18] [19]. Looks like the Mystery/Lovesystems people this time around. Do you know if anything has been done other than blocking spammers? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think a discussion of the relative merits of pi and 2pi as fundamental named constant, and the reason one was chosen over the other, is something which would be very fitting to be present on Pi. My recent contribution may not've been spectacular but I was hoping it'd be expanded on etc. Or do you genuinely disagree with the premise? 4pq1injbok ( talk) 16:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, I am puzzled by your reversal of my edit, on which you commented
My understanding is that the living person you are referring to is Michio Kaku, whose book I referred to. Since I referenced his book, where the statement appears, I don't understand why you call it “unsourced”: would your objection be withdrawn if I included a page number? I am asking this for the purpose of better understanding Wikipedia practices. As for the article, I will try to include the essential technical point without referring to any people living or dead. Sincerely, AmirOnWiki ( talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel sorry for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.84.114 ( talk) 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: you appear to be stalking me and reverting several of my (unrelated) edits without any explanation on the Talk pages. One more and you'll get an ANI. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop it, Arthur. Your four reversions today of my four sets of see-also links from four articles cubic equation, quartic equation, quintic equation, and septic equation are not justified by your unexplained comment "revert unnecessary links". Many "see also" links are not vitally necessary—they are helpful to some readers.
Based on this as well as some of the entries in your talk page you clearly are trolling, which is "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." "Note that some behavior listed here [as trolling] has been taken as disruption of Wikipedia in Arbitration Committee decisions."
In addition, you appear to be wikihounding me, perhaps because I previously complained ( here and here that you had engaged in unexplained reversions that you yourself ended up admitting were unjustified. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by ... disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
The fact that you are trolling and wikihounding me is shown by the content-inconsistency but editor-consistency of your reversions. For example, in
cubic equation, you deleted see-also links to
sextic equation and
septic equation because I had added them, but you did not delete see-also links to
quartic equation and
quintic equation because I was not the one who added them. Likewise, in
quartic equation, you deleted see-also links to
sextic equation and
septic equation because they were added by me, but you did not delete the see-also links to
cubic equation and
quintic equation because they were not added by me. Thus you have disrupted my legitimate effort to create consistency in these see-also sections.
I have asked David Eppstein to arbitrate this. Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: could you weigh in on a discussion involving your recent edits to Iraq sanctions, on the discussion page there? Thanks, DougHill ( talk) 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see from your archives that you are heavily biased, Jewish, and a troll. Perhaps you are trying to 'defend your faith' however it has no place here. You cannot subvert the meaning of words. It will never succeed.
Recently you removed one of my definitions. Why? Because it wasn’t referenced from the 'highly' credible Dictionary.com and many so called 'American'-English dictionaries. I have much experience with comparing these dictionaries with English ones, believe me, i wouldn’t use them to prop up a table. Most commonly, their grasp of the meaning of words is... shall we say... like that of a developing country. Most often circular definitions are the order of the day. And their neglect for the history of words causes many problems with their defining them.
"A government is that of the body politic which exercises governance over the territory which it claims to represent. 'Government' may be either within the territory or outside of it. It manages custodianship over all public property, administrates law and may prescribe public development. It may be comprised of several organisations and heads of state, or one, generally, representing the interests of natives to the territory through policy."
There is nothing wrong with what i attempted to add to the definition. I can only assume that it wasn’t to your liking. Well, its a good thing that your liking doesn’t matter, otherwise wikipedia would become nothing more than your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.236.251 ( talk) 12:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know why you reverted my contribution to the September 11th attacks article, when it is widely known that cell phones can not be used in flight for various technical reasons. Ignorance is strength ( talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm sure you will agree that the aircraft were traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and were not at low altitude until just before crashing; some of the purported calls took place while the aircraft were miles above the ground. Ignorance is strength ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Author, please comment prior to reverting material that was correcting unverified information with verified information on the xx90s year articles, per both Decade and Century articles. Right now, there is a confusion about the year where Centuries start and where "decades" start. They are not a one-for-one as some colloquially assume. This confusion resulted in an illogical situation where the list of years (as Wikipedia articles) contradicted with the actual definition of a referenced term "century". My edits simply clarified this per general consensus on both decade and century articles without addressing the general debate over the Millennium date, which is a much bigger issue all together. — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's an odd sequence of events:
JulesElise also seems to be supporting Chambers109 on 2012 phenomenon, reimplementing the same text as Chambers109 after you twice reverted those edits. I find this very odd given that Chambers109 was created 1 minute before JulesElise first edited within the subject. Yworo ( talk) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to add sourced content, remove unsourced content, and generally make useful edits/revisions to the Melissa Farley page. However, I see you're undoing a lot of the edits I was making. Let me explain further about these edits, in the interest of reaching consensus and improving parts of this article.
I still think there should be at least a small statement about Ronald Weitzer's public and professional position on prostitution. Readers are entitled to know something more about the person who is criticizing Melissa Farley other than just that he is a "sociologist." Weitzer has advocated for a two-track system of prostitution in numerous sources. I do not think it violates BLP to identify Weitzer's stated professional position on prostitution. It is a documented fact that he holds these views. I did provide one such source (something he himself wrote) and you removed it, along with my added content edit. http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/LT_weitzerRDY_06-19-09_RIEMNEJ_v17.3e9356f.html Can you please explain why? Here's another: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000223 If Weitzer's criticisms of Farley's views/studies on prostitution are to be placed on Farley's page, then in the interest of NPOV I feel his own publicly-stated views on prostitution should be briefly disclosed there as well.
The paragraph beginning "Farley has also been criticized for accepting significant funding from anti-prostitution organization..." continues to need significant revision. The first sentence is entirely unsourced and in fact it does not even say who is doing the criticizing. I do not believe that anonymous, unsourced, and blanket accusations such as this are allowed on Wikipedia, especially on a BLP page. If you go on to read the content of footnote 14, you will see that Jill Brenneman does not criticize Farley for her funding sources. She doesn't even mention it. The bottom line is that there are no verifiable sources or documentation for the content in the first sentence, so the statement needs to be removed entirely and quickly (especially since this is BLP). Furthermore, footnote 14 provides this factual information: "Her research was supported 70% by Prostitution Research & Education and 30% by the Trafficking in Persons Office of the US State Dept." I believe NPOV requires both grant sources to be identified in a neutral statement just like this. The current writing is biased toward a particular POV because only one of the funding agencies is identified, followed by an unsourced accusation against that agency. The current assertion that the government TIP office has "an outspoken policy which conflates prostitution with trafficking" is speculative, biased, and unsourced. It should be removed. EconProfessor ( talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would like to continue my conversation with Mr. Rubin here for now. It is well-known that Weitzer and Farley have fundamentally different views on prostitution. This difference makes Weitzer's own position on prostitution relevant enough to disclose here when presenting his critique on Farley. Weitzer's views vis-a-vis Farley's views are documented on his Wikipedia page, as well as places such as Pro/Con which place them on opposite sides of the debate. http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=120 He is not just some random sociologist who has independently reviewed Melissa Farley's work. Weitzer's views on prostitution should be at least briefly mentioned so that casual readers are aware that he publicly holds an opposing position to Farley. It should not be a violation of BLP to re-state what has been judged acceptable to publish on Weitzer's own Wikipedia page.
Regarding TIP, I would like to reword the "conflate" phrase because there is no reliable source for that claim. EconProfessor ( talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sampletalk ( talk) 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, Thank you for the welcome. I think you are right about removing my additions to "First Order Logic" and "Church-Turing Thesis" articles. Actually, I was trying to attract a public attention to this research, and Wikipedia is not the right place to do this. Though, I think this research has deep philosophical implications, can be easily described by simple analogies (like the comparison of conventional vs. alternative medicine), and paradoxically is not well understood by professionals.
Regards,
Andrew Gleibman (Sampletalk), Israel
STOP CHANGING ALL OF MY EDITS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. Wjfox2005 ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"proof is probably accurate, but requires a source, per Wikipedia rules", why does my contribution violates Wikipedia rules?
I did add a source: Instructor's manual. But the lemma I cited is just a sentence in the Instructor's manual. Actually in Instructor's manual, it is just a claim. I hope you can give a solution, because I think the proof is very hard to find, and useful for someone, maybe. And I was not copying all the content in the Instructor's manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugthink ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I see in
Number you have changed my additions of {{
frac}}
to {{
fracText}}
with the edit summary that "consensus seems to be that fractions are [used in this manner] in math articles".
I am more than happy to accept that; I changed them as part of the GA review because there was not specifically anything on the talk page to indicate this consensus, so defaulted to MoS. Could you please point me to the consensus of which you speak?
I have no doubt you are right; I myself was a little surprised that this had not come up before. A comment about the consensus at the GA review would be very handy, and I am more than happy to accept it.
Incidentally I've raised the subject at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Fractions as it seems to me that all it says is to put fractions in "fractional form" without defining what that is, and even in the section WP:MOSNUM#Fractions only says what to do about common fractions, which leaves us high and dry dealing with other fractions – for myself I would not regard a⁄b as a common fraction, for example.
It's probably bad form anyway to say that the rationals are of the form a⁄b without saying that a and b are integers, and some would say they have to have other properties e.g. being the least common multiple, the denominator being a nonzero natural and so on, which is covered here adequately but not in the table saying a rational is of that form. That's probably OK, the table is there to summarise rather than define.
But I am also a little queasy that the words "fraction" and "rational" seem to be used rather interchangeably in this article.
I'm happy to move this to the article's talk page if you think better, but thought I would get your opinion first.
Thanks for all your hard work here and everywhere (at least one editor notices it). Si Trew ( talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here [21], and I look forward to reading your input. Mantes ( talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Im bad at this. I'm a dui lawyer, thats all I do, and I agree with you that stuff is taken from cites; but if you read closely, youll see that the conclusions drawn are completely unsupported by the numbers; in fact DUI numbers have stayed stagnant for fifteen years without any adjustments. dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrosenbloom ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete all the new edits, many of which are related to latest research? Ahtcan ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, left you a message regarding our edit disagreement at Talk:The Age of Stupid/Archive_1#end of release section would love your thoughts (still think it isn't in the reference) :). James ( T C) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I thought you'd be interested in the proposed change to the John Major Jenkins page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits back to your version, but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 ( talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This was probably a waste of time, but I did what I could. Tide rolls 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am quite new here, i'm very interested in the project and looking forward to working with it.
I though ran over something in the user name policy, that said that you should not use tha name of a well known person.
My real name is Michael Nicholas Jackson. It's not me who gave myself that name - blame my parents.
I would though ask you to change the username to nicky86, if that's possible, please. MichaelJackson231 ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If I can keep the username, then I wouldn't care too much. MichaelJackson231 ( talk) 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be gracious of you to remove the personal comment about Hewitt, part of this edit. Surely we can explain why the material is inappropriate without commenting on the person. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied at Portal talk:Contents. Sorry for the length. Please feel free to ask anything, there, or here, or my talkpage. I want us all to be having a discussion; not an argument, as this topic keeps devolving into! Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to understand tempts to find out. Mathematics represents reality in the immaterial form. You say 'it's possible there's something there'. There is plenty, please ask. P.S. In the article 2n or 1/2n should read 2 or 1/2 to the power of 'n'. KK ( 213.158.199.138 ( talk) 09:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
It is very important to use the edit summary when you revert, especially when you're reverting non-anons. It helps avoid edit wars and encourages discussion, so please try to remember to use the edit summary. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the recent date changes on the Generation Z (as well as Generations page. The current change lists early 1990s as the start, but that runs into Generation Y. I made it clear on the discussion page on both those pages that 1995 was the date most used by demographers, researchers, media, etc. Apparently, that editor seems to think I am going by dates in "my book," whatever that means, and accused me of vandalism. I thought it was wrong for him to change the dates in the opening paragraph of this article without any discussion. His sources are only one or two, and one of them is a site for parents and pregnancy. I don't think that is a reliable source. I thought since you contributed to the article, you would be interested in giving your views. I also let other editors know about this. Thanks for your contributions. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Ollie's talk page isn't available currently and he was the last person to edit the page so I wanted to ask you.
I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to make my page appropriate. I have now removed all references to specific virtual worlds and companies and yet it got removed again. I need it to stay up for my class.
The assignment was to add to the article the training section to discuss virtual worlds in training. What can I do to make it acceptable?
Thanks,
jjoseph177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur,
I incorporated your suggestions and Mr. Ollie removed it again. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a complaint at WP:ANI about the edits by Hiberniantears which you reverted at Richard C. Hoagland. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism from Hiberniantears. You may wish to weigh in on one side or the other. __ meco ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens external link. It clearly does not violate WP:ELNO 11 as the video was made by a professional news magazine production syndicated nationally on PBS. I have further explained my reasoning on the the article's discussion page. CrazyPaco ( talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought we were getting somewhere, and then TT had to go off on another no-compromise rant! Sigh.
Is there any chance you could reply to my first question, above his comments, at that thread? Much thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I (anonymously) edited the redirection "Twin prime conjecture" -> "Twin_prime#Polignac.27s_conjecture" to go only to the "Twin prime"-page, but you changed it back. My reason for changing it is that the whole article, more or less, is about the twin prime conjecture (it is mentioned already in the second paragraph and several times later), and I think that somebody searching for "twin prime conjecture" is not looking for Polignac's conjecture (which has its own page, where "twin prime conjecture" links to the "Twin prime" page). Mathboy ( talk) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You might be interested in this message on User talk:213.158.199.139:
The Giving Pledge is an LLC with its own website. Citing primary sources is allowed. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 ( talk) 11:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I replied to your reply there. The Transhumanist 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice from your contributions that you seem to do a fair bit of vandal-patrolling - bravo for that. Often, when reverting, you commendably give a reason for your reverts. Please would you consider turning 'often' into 'nearly always'. Thanks in advance, Trafford09 ( talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur,
I just wanted to say thanks for your recent comments (and earlier comments) in the ArbCom case file on Race and intelligence. I'm very much of a newbie here and I have learned about a lot of subtleties by reading your posts. I see by surfing by that you also edit articles about mathematics. I wish I had more familiarity with the sources to do more editing of those—rather, I rely on those to improve my knowledge as I know work as an elementary math teacher in supplemental classes for gifted students. Your work in looking after those articles is much appreciated by math learners like me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trotter Prize (Texas A&M), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview ( talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what this was about. The subject was clearly listed in the target article. The entry is a valid use of a dab page especially as the two Steve Jones get mixed up frequently. Dawnseeker2000 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. May I ask you why in this edit, again you didn't state in the Edit Summary your reason for reverting? Trafford09 ( talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair point - but there were 7 intervening edits between your first & 2nd revert, so there's always a risk that such a revert is misinterpreted (& I hadn't seen your subsequent edit), so it never hurts to say e.g. "see my last revert" or "see article's talk page" or something similar. I'll chill a bit now :) Trafford09 ( talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is an atheist affiliated organization as is made clear on its website. Freakshownerd ( talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't realize that the template was so poorly coded that it would spill all its guts out like that if substituted. I fixed the problem, but I didn't find that the template was being used on any articles, just archived talk pages. User:Plastikspork went ahead and fixed the parameters for me. Axem Titanium ( talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I am confused, I have been told several times not to use trade names. I corrected Kværner-process to Dry Arc process because I will also be adding another posting on a Submerged Arc process. If the two are not properly differentiated there will be confusion.
I am new to this and am doing what I was told by your colleagues, thanks for your help. Globalreach1 ( talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this revert. I'm not sure whether we should say definitively that GPS is not affected measurably by relativity or not ... my mind is open. But I'd like any claims that it is or isn't to be backed by a verifiable source. I'll let readers decide whether to believe any particular source. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As you know, you challenged the reliability of the official website of The Giving Pledge, and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#The Giving Pledge. The full discussion is there, and any response to my message here, should be made there, since we both prefer such discussions to be kept to a single place. But I'm drawing your attention to that noticeboard because I want to be sure that you didn't miss the following direct response to your comments.
- I don't see any evidence that the web site is reliable for anything except the organization's press releases. I admit it's unlikely that they would say anything libelous about their donors (even though, being supported by Bill Gates, they may have an impressive legal force at their command), but we are more restricted in making unsupported statements than the law allows. My take is, until a consensus is established here, we should only list pledgers if that pledge is reported by news media, or clearly by the pledgers themselves. For many of the ones you've added, reliable sources for the pledge are available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- We use cites like this all the time for uncontroversial claims like "so and so serves on the board of XYZ foundation" or "so and so is an associate editor of a journal". Even when another source is available, that doesn't prevent us from using the source. We can just cite both, helping the reader along to the charity org (especially if the newspaper doesn't include a hyperlink). This isn't and shouldn't be a controversial subject, we don't need to read WP:RS parsimoniously. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as you can observe at the BLPN, Protonk ( talk · contribs) isn't the only one who disputes your assessment of The Giving Pledge's reliability. If you don't raise any further issues at the BLPN, I trust you'll end your practice of reverting good faith edits that cite The Giving Pledge as the source. Thanks. 67.101.7.201 ( talk), formerly editing as 67.101.5.165 ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You expressed some concern over outlines, and specifically about some of them that you thought could use some improvement.
In your opinion, which outlines need the most work?
What improvements are needed?
I'm available to work on them.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding this revert: >90% of the entries on the page concern events which happen in fictional works. {{ In-universe}} seemed to be the most appropriate tag to work on that. I wasn't aware that date articles were exempt from the usual rules on in-universe content. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to add the following to the 'Alternative names' page.
- CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The Minister of State, Department of Health, has stated that "we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. [6]
Unfortunately Sciencewatcher keeps removing this, and has now been joined by WLU. It is the same source and information I used to back up the official name on the 'CFS' page, and the acceptance of the WHO classification is stated by the Health Minister in Parliament. As shown on page 5 of the Parliamentary Inquiry CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK.
Sciencewatcher keeps stating that Parliament is not a reliable source, which clearly it is considering it is the Government speaking for the NHS, NICE, MRC, & The Blood Service, which they control. Basically it is a ridiculous argument.
The alternative names page should have this information, as clearly it is an official name.
Arguments I have used against their POV on the talk page :
Kings College - Kings college are not Parliament and still have had to use the official term for their heading, CFS/ME. Also, Parliament controls the NHS and therefore the official term, unless you are saying that they are lying, which of course would be ridiculous. Meaction UK - Not relevant to the facts. WHO - Is not relevant to the official term used in the UK. It is however relevant to the UK classification, which is neurological in accordance with the WHO ICD-10. Parliamentary Inquiry - States that CFS/ME is the official term. (Use of any other name is not relevant to the facts, as they state that the official term is CFS/ME) Parliamentary document - The statement is not the opinion of a single parliamentarian. It is a statement by the Health Minister on behalf of the NHS. (ie. NICE, MRC, UK Blood service) The Health Minister at no time states which is the official term out of the alternative names she uses. DWP - Is controlled by the Parliament. This issue is not what other names are used elsewhere, but what is used officially in the UK. As proven, UK Parliament states the official term to be CFS/ME. NICE - The official guidelines use the official term, CFS/ME.
Again, Parliament has stated that "...hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK." There it is in black and white. Again, Parliament has stated that they accept the WHO classification of CFS/ME as neurological, they have not said that it is a neurological condition, but that they accept the WHO classification. Black and white fact again.
Annette Brooke is not the Health Minister so I suggest you re-read the source. The Health Minister, Gillian Merron, speaking for the DOH & NHS, states "I want first to put on the record that we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. " Fact.
This has no bearing on the ME, CFS, CFIDS, or PVF sections. It is about the official term in the UK.
As this is a world page, it has to reflect the terms used throughout the world. CFS/ME is the offical term in the UK, and therefore needs it's own section. It appears that you are ignorant to how the UK Parliament & NHS work. Parliament speaks for them, they control them, and all other bodies within the NHS. I again suggest you re-read the sources provided very slowly.
I would again appreciate it if you could take a look at this.
Many thanks UYBS
—Preceding unsigned comment added by UYBS ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
the page Green New Deal I feel it definitely requires more information, it is made of just one concept with regards to the creation of the Green New Deal without considering the developments whatsoever. I feel it should have more information on how it has progressed to what the Green New Deal is today rather than just mentioning where it was born. Just a thought, let me know your views.
Thanks and regards Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
With respect to Politics of global warming (United States) please make yourself familiar with the three revert rule. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
When adding tags, as you did here for example, and the issue is not immediately obvious can you add you concerns to the article talk page? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
re:
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc."
from WP:MINOR. -- Gwern (contribs) 10:41 29 August 2010 (GMT)
You tagged SOoCC [22] apparently in error - GCSP isn't a political organistaion. Could you clarify this on the article talk page, please? The tag has now become hostage to consensus William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
can you advise how to make the article increase its notability. There are references to publications with the United Nations Environment Programme, the intergovernmental International Institute of Refrigeration and more. Can you help me understand what it is missing more specifically. I am now working in bringing in links from other related sources such as Green New Deal, renewable energy etc. thank you for your help,
Regards, Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see your wikibreak notice, and just wanted to wish your wife and all concerned a speedy recovery and enjoyment of good health. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Did you see the talkpage discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Off2riorob excluding open wikis under 12? Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You are telling me that I'm failing to discuss on Chiropractic. Please go ahead and check my contributions for the past 9 days I have done nothing except discuss that article. If I'm a bit slow to respond to some issues, that's because I have things to do outside Wikipedia. QuackGuru has been requested not to contact me on my talk page due to personal attacks, and I have reverted his edits on my talk page just as he reverts all my edits on his talk page. He knows this. The article talk page is not the place to resolve personality issues and I will not go into that on the article talk page.-- Anon 10:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Dr. Rubin: I am a bit disappointed that you had to delete my many hours of work on the topic of Modular Arithmetic/Functional Representation, but I have discussed this topic at length on the Discussion page under the heading by the same name, as I proceeded to contribute improvements to it. Could you please address my concerns by reading my extended "blog" there?
There has been little focus on this topic for at least six months, when I first contributed to it, until this week: I don't know why the sudden interest on this topic's content. Until a few days ago, no one had noticed some of the horrible math that had been posted there, in that same section.
I'll look forward to getting your feedback on the Discussion page. Toolnut ( talk) 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I posed the question in a discussion related to User:William M. Connolley if there is any administrator left, who is using his real name and is notable enough to have his own article. I may in fact be in a need for such an administrator. Is there any way to list or find administrators with articles? I could not find any list, but my 11 degrees of separation brought me here. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
Sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate your time. I won't repost it. My mind is distraught with the notion that there are instructors translating limits of infinity as being DNE. Unfortunately as a private tutor of 21 years in AP Calculus and Physics I have to contend with an instructor who doesn't understand this. I was hoping there would be a place where reason could have its say and this misconception could be avoided by future students seeking clarification. As a side note, I even used a TI-89 ROM on my computer to calculate a limit, took a screenshot of it, printed it out, and had the student take it to her instructor. .. and still the instructor insists that the answer on the calculator is incorrect. Her interpretation of infinity is equivalent to DNE !! Help me free the children from this incompetence. Oh the madness !! :)
I have no doubt that your sense of humility has aided the path to your own enlightenment.
Your counsel is appreciated.
Your friend,
James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.234.206 ( talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah 9 11 was carried out by 19 cave dwelling Muslims who are openly funded by CIA. Even the Jundallaah terrorist leader admitted it. Wikipedia is for fact suppressing fagots like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.114.241 ( talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I sure missed that one (the non-sequitur "without") when I was looking it over. Good catch! Thanks for cleaning it up! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, about September 11th, I made the change (which you reverted) after discussion with another user. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
The debate could have gone on for days...Thank for understanding Moxy ( talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
See User talk:Teacherbrock#Major changes must be discussed. When I saw you referenced the header, I put it back as a subsection. -- Avi ( talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, please include this study in the opening of the XMRV page. It is undeniably relevant to the discussion, and it is currently the most prestigious publication among all others relating to XMRV, MLV's and CFS. Come on now, be reasonable. Who else has a greater reputation among the authors than Harvey J. Alter? For Pete's sake, he's the director of the NIH.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
WHY????? CommanderWorf ( talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I recognize you as a user on some of the pages I edit, so I thought maybe you could help. I recently added my response to this Straw poll on Wikipedia. I can't believe I hadn't read anything about "Pending Changes." I read that it was a two month trial, but when were these changes proposed? Also, sometimes I get a bit overwhelmed with all the information on here. Are all announcements posted on Wikipedia in a Watchlist options box? I seem to recall an invitation made for those Wikipedians who lived in my town to get together during last Christmas break, but I can't recall where that was posted. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, you tagged the external link to www.southpolecarbon.com as rv spam. As South Pole Carbon Asset Management is the world's largest developer of high quality emission credits, which companies and individuals use to become carbon neutral, I think a link to that website makes a lot of sense. Could you please explain why you took out that link? Thank you very much. SPpenguin ( talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
Did you know: my paper was updated: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1808 Please, see my thanks for your help in Acknowledgments section. Looking forward to hear your comments about revised Lemma 1. -- Tim32 ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes on Income tax in the United States. I'll incorporate in next draft. Thanks especially for the tip on CFR references. The ECFR has been driving me nuts since it was introduced this year. It's supposed to be current within 1-2 business days (see its main page for general info and top of each ECFR page for update date). Many of the links to old CFR that had dated editions no longer work. I will go thru looking for edits I've done and clean up cites to remove SIDs, after I test a for a few days to make sure the links are stable. A favor: could you test a few? I'd like to be sure they work from different IP addresses. Two non-new articles with new ECFR links, not yet updated: Corporate tax in the United States, Circular 230. One with SIDs removed: Alternative Minimum Tax I'm a tax guy, not a computer guy, and no spring chicken, so sometimes I feel a bit challenged. Thanks and best wishes, Oldtaxguy ( talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Das Baz ( talk · contribs) added this yet again today - unless you can think of a reason not, I'm going to warn him (not with a template) about edit warring and tell him to take it to the talk page to get consensus before adding it again. Dougweller ( talk) 08:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Why nobody notify me until all reverts done? And why you put the talk on an hidden place, instead of the article's talk page? I was completely isolated from the discussion! -- 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just as you said, "matrix polynomial" is more often a polynomial with matrix variables, rather than with matrix coefficients, but
is clearly a polynomial with matrix coefficients, rather than a polynomial with matrix variables! So the article is COMPLETELY "Polynomial with matrix coefficients", rather than "matrix polynomial". -- 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain yourself on Talk pages, please. No desire for this edit warring behavior. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not be insulting with trite comments like "completely wrong" as there are have been arguements for the edits, with logic, arguable maybe, but "completely wrong": no. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been doing a lot of reverting on Charles G. Koch recently. You may want to cut back a bit so you don't run afoul of 3RR. Will Beback talk 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please justify why you have removed the link that I put up to the Spearman's calculator. 86.160.232.184 ( talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a specialist calculator that provides step-by-step workings of how to calculate your correlation coefficient using your own entered data. It cannot be implemented on Wikipedia and it is free to users. I find it is a great resource (for learning) that other Wikipedia users should have the opportunity to access from the external links. Please reinstate this link. 86.160.232.184 ( talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm editing with a smart phone at the moment which is awkward. I tried to revert POV about coal mining but made an error. Can you review and take appropriate action? I don't want to get into an edit war and this is an ongoing problem. Thanks. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the image in the article slap, it would be much appreciated if you discussed its inclusion on the talk page until we come to a consensus, instead of edit-warring to keep it out. Thank you. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read WP:PRIMARY, and there is no absolute rule against use of primary sources. The only rule is in adding interpretation not found in primary sources, or in basing entire articles on primary sources. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to this template, I'm not seeing the lack of concensus that you see, and it was implemented as well as could be in the absence of a more robust solution. Perhaps you could offer some more input at the talk page, because as it is this seems rather like a drive-by revert, which isn't terribly helpful to anyone. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Yes it should since Nanogold is a registered trademark of a private company. The statement that colloidal gold (a general scientific term) is otherwise known as a trademark of a private company is difficult to digest when there is no basis for the statement "otherwise known as." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
here i was talking about non-controversial things. thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've probably been too directly involved with him to take action, but this is getting to be clearly edit warring to get his entry into various date articles. Dougweller ( talk) 04:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Charles G. Koch. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"(Again, I'm not stating that you do presently even contemplate that, although you have done it in the past.) "
Sorry for being coy about it - I think you mistakenly picked the wrong section title over at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. We are not discussing scientific consensus, but opinions by learned societies (we had a section on consensus in the article with 10 or so statements to the effect, but it was deemed overkill). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthut,
Why did you undo all the changes I made to Schnirelman density? I had corrected all the many errors in this article. For example, under Schnirelman's Theorem the assertion about Lagrange's theorem is false unless one includes 0 as a square, because otherwise 4 is the smallest number which cam be represented and the density would be 0! Most of the theorems quoted are also false unless at least one the sets contains 0. Since the N for the natural numbers is ambiguous (some people include 0, others do not) it is important to spell it out. The use of the symbol \oplus is inconsistent with the useage in the Wikipedia definition of set addition. There are many other similar problems in the version you have restored and my revisions were designed to remove them. I am not going to go back in and change them all back again, but as it stands this article does the disservice.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Which changes appeared to be incorrect? As for \oplus, it links the reader to the article on sumsets (where, incidentally, the symbol is not used). The definition there says that A+B is simply everything of the form a+b with a in A and b in B. I didn't see any definition in the Schnirelman density article. This article is almost exclusively about something in additive number theory and my experience of working in the area for more than 40 years is that that is the usual definition. If you have another definition in mind it needs to be spelled out in the article and justified. Another example of the kind of problems in this article. Look at the final formula in the section on Waring's problem. R_N^k(n) is an integer, but n^{N/k} is typically irrational. Moreover this is not even a good approximation. The actual volume of the region containing the lattice point is not n^{N/k} but is multiplied by a factor with is a ratio of gamma functions.
Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
hi bro... I understand if you have some concerns about my addition. I thought it was meaningful, and decent info. For the " Roman numerals" article. And well-meaning. The point is that it's accurate and good-faith. And according to Wikipedia policy, only actual vandalism or truly inaccurate things, (or totally unrelated things), should be summarily "reverted". Undoing or reverting, per WP recommendation and guidelines, should be done rarely.... And not for good faith accurate edits or additions. I hope we can maybe work something out, or maybe move it or modify my contrib here, instead of just totally removing it. Let me know what you think. And thanks for your attention to this. ResearchRave ( talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you explain why you reverted my edit to Bilderberg Group, which added content sourced to The Guardian, with the minor tag and no explanation? Are you aware of the guidelines on WP:MINOR? The explanation for reversion should be explained on the talk page - in this response please only explain the why you used the minor tag. II | ( t - c) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have another edit or modification, I'd like to add, but I'd like your take (and permission) first, before I do. It would be under the "Origins" section of the article. It's with the sentence that's already there that says: "it was later identified as the letter D, perhaps as an abbreviation of demi-mille "half-thousand";". What I'd like to elaborate it with (also from Asimov's "Asimov On Numbers" book) is "an alternative symbol for "thousand" looks like this (I), and half of a thousand or "five hundred" is the right half of the symbol, or I), and this may have been converted into D." How's that? To make it a bit clearer what was meant by what's already there in the article "perhaps as an abbreviate of demi-mille". Just a little bit of an elaboration or clarity, with it. I hope it's ok...let me know. Thanks. ResearchRave ( talk) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I have added a justification for the changes I tried to make to the Schnirelman density article. I would be grateful for your feedback. Hopefully we can end up with a better article.
Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Reference to the screenplay dialogue by online or other search will be capable of verifying the fact for you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reingelt ( talk • contribs)
You have a new message here. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Third party reliable source
are you kidding me? go to his website, truthjihad.com and it says his blog is dot blogspot. please stop your vandalism -- 75.198.78.182 ( talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"lambda^4 = 1" is the equation that corresponds to the polynomial expression "lambda^4-1", that is essentially the characteristic polynomial when neglecting multiplicity of eigenvalues, especially multiplicity zero, of the matrix of the discrete fourier transform. Why not link accordingly? HenningThielemann ( talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
On ANI you commented "He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy. " I would be interested to know why you think this bearing in mind:
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Arthur,
Its not my trademark. I don't think any company's trademarks should be used - they are a form of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There are many millions of people around the world who are very much interested in the movement to end the practice of torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Not again!!! Arthur Rubin, who the hell are you? Again, you've deleted something that was true and sourced. I'd deleted a statement that was completely unsupported: maybe it is the case that Press For Truth made its first TV appearance in 2007, but in this case support it, source it, reference it, for heaven's sake!!! What you deleted was the well-established, well-supported fact that Press For Truth made its TV debut in the US, in Colorado in 2009! Why would you delete my supported fact to revert back to some dubious statement? It doesn't make sense at all!!! Are you my enemy or what? What do you want from me???????????-- Little sawyer ( talk) 11:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain I don't understand the feedback you left here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15#Category:Redirects_from_domain_name. If possible, please elaborate on what you mean. Also--in much more important news--I hope your better half has a swift and thorough recovery. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sustainable Human Development, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you've been removing/reverting edits that cite a New York Times article. [24] However it seems as if you didn't look at the second page of that article which contains some of the assertions that the anon editor is citing. Could you double check your work? Will Beback talk 07:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
99.184.231.13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was just blocked by user:Slakr, has in my estimation been unfairly treated as a vandal. I have evaluated the sum of their edits which were systematically reverted by you, and I have found it necessary to reaffirm all edits done by the IP user as reasoned and appropriate, and as a consequence thereof I have reverted all undoings back to the state following IP user's edits. I encourage you to make a renewed venture into this matter. __ meco ( talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Mbz just broke the interaction ban. Please block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you removed, but then reverted the removal of a citation. I posted at the talk page to anyone, but as you decided it did belong, wanted to make sure you saw my question.-- SPhilbrick T 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (I see you are reasonably active lately, so I hope this means your wife is recovering nicely from her surgery.)
Best wishes for your wife's recovery from her surgery. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment for this change: we already have reliable sources linking the Koch brothers to the Tea Party movement. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 06:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of the policy regarding inline math tags; I won't use them in the future. However, I believe my change was still an improvement over the entirely broken state of that equation previously. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope your wife is doing better. I opened a discussion on the talk page for this article about the status of all the POV, etc. tags on it. Perhaps you can contribute some background to the discussion. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you for the prompt reply. I noticed that I had been distracted before completing my comments and posted an incomplete version. I have since updated it so it makes more sense. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope all is well in your RL and you are able to find some time to participate in the discussion about all the tags on this article. Thanks, Veriss ( talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The name in the navigational template should be the same as in the main article, if you disagree with the article's name, propose it for move. If you think the topic is not notable, propose the main article for deletion (I doubt it will be deleted since there are multiple sources and it has about 5 times more text than the article about sedenions). I hope you will not do any destructive edits any more.-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And it seems that you actions completely insane in this case. I suggest you think about it once more. Tessarines are completely analogous to quaternions, the only difference is that in quaternions i^2=j^2=k^2=-1, while in tessarines i^2=k^2=-1 but j^2=+1. That's the difference. Both are examples of hypercomplex numbers. Tessarines are commutative unlike quaternions. If you think quaternions should be there, there s no reason why this system should not.-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 02:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And note that they already had been there. This is your own revision with tessarines: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Number_systems&oldid=332911297 So do you remove them now just out of combat spirit?-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:
- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml
- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf
- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/
- …
clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. Best Alexander468 ( talk) 16:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources are reliable, insofar we're discussing conspiracy theories, which precisely are NOT mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
Not sure why you are reverting my edits (137.44.8.85) to Ripchip Bot's edits on the 'environmental migrant' wiki entry. The changes I made were subtle but crucial. The 'environmental migrant' concept has no analytical integrity, and it is important for the introduction to the article to note this BEFORE any typologies are then provided.
Please in future leave it as it is. Nothing is certain and stable in terms of our knowledge of the relationship between 'environment' and 'migration', thus this must be flagged in the article at the start.
Regards
Tom Monteath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.8.85 ( talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Hope your wife is getting better faster! My daughter just got her jaw surgery 2 months ago too.
I attempted to submit a 2012 super volcano resource to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon and was disapproved due to biased paragraph. I took that into consideration and made edits to make sure the content did not have any bias in it. Please take a look:
Supervolcanoes were featured in the 2012 (film) capable of creating volcanic eruption force considerably greater than an ordinary volcano. [7] The ash that shoot out to the atmosphere can block light from the sun for 11 years, rendering global climate to drop up to 21 degrees, a phenomenon known as the nuclear winter. [7] Supervolcanoes are subsequently found in many areas of the world, one particularly in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming when Geologists discovered a 90 cm higher elevation in the terrain compared to 1923.
Is the above paragraph still biased? Can you point out the errors or penalties so I can fix them? Please let me know, as I try my best to provide good resources to Wikipedia.
Thanks, Ben FPMBen ( talk) 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FPMBen ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, you restored the disputed "grassroots" to the lead entirely without discussion. Given the nature of the article, I find this to be hasty and counterproductive. To make such changes, you must first gain consensus by going to the Talk page and making your case. I recommend that you do so. Until then, I will remove your premature, "bold" change. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, here is a link to the exact law being broken by McDonald's in Ohio, [26], please put back the article, Passionless ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, would you care to explain this? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see User talk:99.155.147.254 and their contributions. It must be nice to be loved. Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I made this edit in reply to Alex (as reflected by the indent). Is that clear enough as it is? Or should we bullet our separate replies? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I think you might have reverted too far when you were removing something from the Reincarnation page. You reverted went past my edit in which I removed a really poorly written and poorly cited (in that one of the citations was a German YouTube video, and one didn't work) section claiming that some Christians believe in reincarnation. Was that your intent? I'm just checking because I don't want to start an edit war. If you want to keep that paragraph in, maybe you could clean up the grammar of it. Matt J User| Talk 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've already asked another editor that I respect a lot for input on this, but I'm going to express the same sentiments to you because I feel it's important.
I'm concerned about this section, not because because it violates policy, but rather because it's disruptive to the mission of the page. Creating a section for the debate of certain tags invites the discussions about the tags' objects to migrate away from their own distinct sections and into that one. I'm also distressed because the tags should remain in the article for as long as their objects are contested and there isn't consensus. A section in which the participants decide to remove a certain tag from the article can subvert the consensus processes in which other editors are engaged in the corresponding discussion sections.
It's already happening. Imagine how big the Tags section is likely to grow. It's destined to become a super-section with breakaway discussions going on parallel to the discussions taking place in their designated sections. I just think this is ridiculous and I don't think we should fuel it. - Digiphi ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, for this edit, you left a comment accusing me of violating WP:3RR. As I explained in some detail, this turns out not to be the case.
Now, I'm sure that both you and Malke were honest in your accusations, but simply misunderstood the rules or had some trouble counting up the edits. Regardless, I'm entirely willing to assume good faith.
While I am not demanding an apology, I would very much like you to formally retract the accusation. Will you do this for me? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we please agree to keep discussion about the mediation formalities in the Talk page so that the Project page can be used for mediation? Interjecting unsigned objections like that is not productive, and to be frank, the objection was not relevant. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
— Spike Toronto 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, as someone who has run for office on the Libertarian ticket, you have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to the Tea Party Movement. I'm not saying this is what disqualifies you from having a valid opinion, but I do insist that you reveal your COI, just as JJB has. It's only fair.
And, to be fair, I want you to understand that if you don't reveal it, I will not hesitate to reveal it for you. As a courtesy, I will give you a day to add that COI notice on the mediation page. After that, I will take matters into my own hands. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I put a ref to a Maths article (website in Germany) and you undid it. No problem with that but it is out of print and hard to find anywhere. Reason for undo? Createangelos ( talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
PS it is in vol 1 of Adv Stud Pure Maths published in Japan which was never reprinted for some reason and not available electronically outside Japan. Our library doesn't have it and I have never seen a published copy. Createangelos ( talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
PPS The link is to the website of a seminar of Viehweg, who passed away a few months ago. He worked with his wife Esnault on connecting these ideas with ideas of Deligne's thesis, which is available in IHES notes. As you probably know, lots of things get used informally such as the SGA seminar proceedings, most but not all available to interested scholars who are not at universities (and even some who are). Anyway the Viehweg site collects together five or 10 articles that are really basic in understanding the history and current state of things as of 2007 or so. The link was to one of them which is an actual reprint; not sure if Adv Stud Pure Math even exists anymore as a publisher or where the reprint came from...
What I am commenting on was that there was a link to a .pdf copy of the actual article and now that seems not to be there anymore (or at least it doesn't seem like anything happens when I click it on my computer, I'll try again now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 22:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no link now, I had made it so when clicking the name of the article it would go to the url http://www.uni-due.de/~mat903/sem/ws0708/C3f.pdf
I have my own copy of the article which I got from a scanned preprint in a file cabinet, but I was surprised that there is an orig. reprint on Viehweg's seminar page which he must have got somehow. Should I try again to put the link in? 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 22:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thx good edit. 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Can you please explain this revert at WT:TITLE#Consistency because I cannot understand PMA's objection as stated in the edit summary of his original revert ("it "conflicts" under those conditions."... what conditions?), nor what he said in the comment at the talk page. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Ham tech person 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please go to this page and put in your opening statement. [29]. I put my statement on the talk page over there and didn't realize I should have put it on the project page. Just giving everybody a heads up. Thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Message Regarding Posting in The Mediation For the ongoing mediation on
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement, please respond only to posts made in previously completed rounds. After everyone has posted for the ongoing round, you may rebut those posts in a new round. Please do not delay in posting your responses. Thanks! |
This is a general notice. Ham tech person 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I've been looking at the BLP issue re. the King Bio court ruling documents. I asked a few questions on the talk page if you care to comment. Ocaasi ( talk) 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
can you provide a link for me over to the mediation for Tea party movement? Thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might recall some of the past problems related to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pickup_artist_editing_by_201.116.29.243. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you have (and if not i would wonder why) lodged one about User:Untillu loose at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_talk:Untillu_loose Lihaas ( talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, Arthur! The article State National has been nominated for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur you keep changing the information I am posting on the Oscillo page, saying it "contradicts" the other information. This is not true, by removing this you are effecting the nuetrality of the page, the information I have is referenced and factual. Please stop taking it down, or I will look further into wikipedia for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.78.14 ( talk) 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you placed a 3RR warning on my talk page, please identify the specific edits you believe are three reverts (undoing an editor's work). I suggest the result of PMA's edits and mine on that page today are an overall improvement largely consistent with BRD, though unfortunately accomplished with a certain amount of animosity, though no less than I feel from you.
By the way, your edit with summary "changing "consistency" back to "generally":
Take articles about books, for example. The title of each article about a book is, if possible, the title of that book. Does that make the title of Winnie-the-Pooh "similar" to Macbeth and Ivy Day in the Committee Room? How? Remember, in the context of the Consistency criterion "similar" means titles that "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". What is the same pattern that is followed in articles about books (and movies and plays and places for that matter)? For most, there is none, and, therefore, consistency is not generally preferred. That's fact, not opinion. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you have not read [ the decision] about the relatively recent (April 2010) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II move, which is quite relevant to this discussion, I suggest you do. Here is the core of the decision:
36 editors agree with DrKiernan's statement, while 14 oppose it. This supermajority is substantial enough to represent a consensus under most circumstances. However, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument. In that respect also, the arguments of the editors proposing the move are better - not in the sense that I agree with them more, but in the sense that they are better supported by applicable Wikipedia policies and practices. The arguments advanced by DrKiernan (and endorsed by those agreeing with them) are logically consistent, arguing essentially that the "most common name" rule, a policy, and the neutral point of view rule, a core policy, are sufficient grounds to make an exception from the naming conventions guideline in this instance; and that the "of the United Kingdom" suffix serves no disambiguative purpose. The arguments opposed to this view are less convincing from the point of view of policy and practice, ...
Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. AJRG (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Except when they aren't; as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- A concise title is preferred. You have to justify the need for disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- So is a consistent title: one that follows the same pattern as those of other similar articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. The present title doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nor does it conform to either WP:NCCN or WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
* clarifying the last discussion was closed on 17 March not last month[2] while the person closing said no concensus the majority(63%) supported the move this was a change from the first discussion in 2005 where 92% opposed the move, clearly concensus has shifted significantly on the issue. An rfc was suggested when the issue was raised at ARBCOM during the last discussion and given that the no-concensus closurer is disputable this is the next step the dispute resolution..Gnangarra 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My edits to WP:TITLE are ultimately about having that policy better reflect what is actually happening in terms of title decision making at Wikipedia than the wording currently implies, to which you and PMA stubbornly cling. The arguments that you and PMA are making with regard to WP:TITLE wording are similar to the ones that PMA made at the Elizabeth II, and were shot down, as they increasingly are in similar discussions in all corners of Wikipedia (in case you haven't noticed). How long are you going to hang on to them? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; I like the self-deprecating comment about templating the regulars. But my last edit was intended as a rewrite of text I (and now Hesperian, as a third opinion) disagree with; it still needs to be rewritten - or if Born2Cycle can stand no opinion but his own, removed. It is not practice; it is not consensus; it is not policy; it should not be on a policy page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I'd like to give you the opportunity to correct an error you've made in this edit. You suggested that the full weight of WP:BLP protects the Tea Party movement, but that turns out not to be the case. Given that it's a large group, the policy is barely even relevant. Please read for yourself, and then correct your error. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
While you're likely in the right here, this edit-war's has been going on since August and shows no sign of slowing. I don't even care one way or the other, so I'd just as soon not involve myself any further. Half Shadow 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not him, I simple didnt understand you at the first time. Thanks for clarifying. The puffery and hype is recognised in the sence that its an euphism. It is as natural as natural makeup that got more chemicals then chernobyl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaskarlson11 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that you are at 3RR on the Koch article. Best, Arjuna ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference to the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in the 2017 article? Aanother ignorant American douchebag. Don't do it again. There's reference to a political event on Hong Kong that you left up so I know this sort of event is perfectly acceptable to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.27.67 ( talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
3 (number). Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Thoroughgoodness (
talk)
10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, it seems our mediator has gone inactive, so I've posted the edit suggestion by Nillagoon on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well have everybody !vote since it really should be a larger consensus. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A quick search of the Ofcom reference for "polemic" finds seven matches, including "the programme was clearly polemical in nature" and "Although this programme was intentionally designed as a polemic", to take a couple of examples. I'm not entirely sure therefore what led you to the conclusion that "polemical" was not supported by the source. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In a recent edit comment, you stated that "FreedomWorks' association with the movement has no source, reliable or not". Even if you knew absolutely nothing about the issue and had only enough intelligence to google "FreedomWorks Tea Party", you would have immediately found http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/, which lists itself as Tea Party HQ. I am deeply concerned that this is part of a pattern of bold but trivially refutable claims. Please be more careful in the future; your reputation is on the line. Dylan Flaherty 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I see you reverted my reversion of QuackGuru's edits without a reason. I provided my objections in the edit comment as well as on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, we should be in the 'discuss' phase, not the 'revert again' phase. Would you revert back while this is hashed out on talk? Being as this is a controversial article, that seems to be the protocol. Ocaasi ( talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
My undo was somewhat accidental. I thought I was removing that portion from the article for the reasons you mentioned. I probably shouldn't edit when tired. Sorry for the inconvenience. 92.76.140.144 ( talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the talk page of 4th millennium BC, where I explain myself. LutherVinci ( talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, you appear to be edit-warring on David H. Koch. This includes a pattern of repeatedly reverting to a version that is inconsistent with our sources, refusing to participate meaningfully in discussion, and generally tendentious editing. As an administrator, I would imagine that you would hold yourself to at least as high a standard as the rest of us are held, but I have been repeatedly disappointed by your the example you set for others. I'm going to simply ask you to revert yourself, without going into detail about the alternatives, as you should already be quite familiar with them. Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
this seems rather inappropriate... -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
How would you summarize the statement? Presumably full quotation would be disproportionately lengthy. Was pretty sure that's what it says. Take it you are in agreement that something about the CoA's opinion should be included here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As I say, how would you summarize? This is what it says, yet as it currently stands the page shows not in citation and I have a 3RR warning. Who is qualified arbitrator? (by the way, are you a qualified accountant and accustomed to reading such documents?) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 08:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I read your comment in the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_calculus#Proposed_.22Identities.22_section
So, you think the following chain rule for matrix calculus is wrong?
I'm curious about whether the matrix calculus has the similar chain rule. can you talk about this more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.120.37.236 ( talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Arthur Rubin, I see that you have thought fit to remove the board of directors from the article on Brighterion, although you do not provide any explanation as to why. I understand that Wikipedia works by consensus and would suggest that in future you first post an entry on the Discussion page. Perhaps you could entitle it 'are the directors of relevance to a company', or something like that. With reference to another similar revert I have noticed to an article on Steffani's Niobe, Regina di Tebe perhaps you could start a discussion entitled 'is the librettist of relevance in baroque opera', or again something similar. Don't know whether you would like to revert your reverts [sic? not quite sure of the appropriate terminology] prior to consensus being reached on these matters. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I see you have now also reverted my edit to hypocrisy. Please can I again refer you to the idea that Wikipedia works by consensus. If you would like to first post an entry on the Discussion page entitled 'are ways in which hypocrisy may be resisted of relevance to an article on hypocrisy', or something similar, then that would be great. In the meantime I would again invite you to revert your reverts [sic?] prior to consensus being reached. Perhaps you could start with my edit to Niobe, Regina di Tebe - I see you have yet to start a discussion as to whether the librettist is of relevance in baroque opera. I understand from a number of the entries on your talk page that you have a recidivist predilection for edit wars and unexplained rollbacks. I also understand that your time, like mine, is limited, so why don't we spend it on improving articles rather than reverting attempted improvements and reverting reverts that are either unexplained or have been made without prior attempt to reach consensus via the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Instead of wasting my time and yours, please discuss with me your basis for reverting my work. I have made different additions to the Alex Jones (radio host) article. If you revert any more changes I make without discussing the issue with me first, I will consider your changes vandalism. 72.240.82.155 ( talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2005 | ← | Archive 2008 | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 |
Hey Arthur.
Notice you deleted a large block of text on 1 Dec from this section of the 2000's decade page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#Names_of_the_decade
Whilst I bow to your wikipedian experience, I wonder if you have not inadvertently lost some quite relevant and interesting detail, leaving something which feels ever so slightly slightly US biased.
As I'm sure you are aware there was some debate, especially in the British and Australian media about how to name the decade and at least in these territories "the noughties" has gained general acceptance. It is used frequently in print and broadcast media. I feel this is useful addition to the page, and certainly our mention of it could be better worded and sourced but it is surely not irrelevant.
Perhaps you would consider re-writing the text you removed, or if you do not have time I would be happy to have another go and place it on the discussion page. Do you think that is a good way to proceed?
best regards,
Mark -- Mapmark ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
OK Arthur, what you say makes perfect sense and thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts. So yes then I will have a go at redrafting that section with better references & paste it on the discussion page to see what others using that entry think. FYI, we cannot cite individual people in casual conversations of course but I have definitely head the noun used by ordinary members of the public so IMHO it is not just a construct of the media! Plus the word is now in the OED & dictionary.com so (although this doesn't prove common parlance) it is certainly ahead of some of the other examples currently on the page. Regards, Mark-- Mapmark ( talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I will be returning a number of the "Alternate names" to this article. I believe that by virtue of the section "Names of the Decade", and its introduction "Unlike previous decades, the 2000s never attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world." that these are ALL RELEVANT. Any removal of them following their return will see a request for consensus, and further removal will constitute vandalism unless an appropriate argument is made.
ATTN: Arthur Rubin - these citations are all relevant to show "usage" in the media and are valid.
Artx ( talk) 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since when do there have to be "non-industry" sources to distinguish between industry-specific terms? That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying: "Only medical textbooks differentiate between these two medical terms...no sources outside the medical industry can be found that do so. Therefore these terms must be considered identical." How is it that texts specifically talking about a subject are not sufficient to provide a basis for differentiation between terms...and further, we have to find texts that carry no weight on the subject? And somehow those are the valid sources? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It takes two to edit war. How come I was the only one given the warning? And you're making exactly the same reverts!. - Regancy42 ( talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're RC patroling and didn't realize what's going on here. I have a troll/stalker reverting my edits and outing me, and (s)he's currently the subject of a thread at WP:AN/I. I understand what it's like to RC patrol and not realize what's going on as I do it myself quite often, but please refrain from further support of the troll's malicious behavior. Thanks for helping defending the encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Arthur you have commented on my edit of the 2010s page as being unoriginal content, however the current content contains misinformation that cannot possibly have been cited from anywhere. The 2010s decade does not start on 1 January 2010, it starts on 1 January 2011. See these pages for information:
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-history.html
(search for year zero on both pages).
The current edit is NOT TRUE. I have added a discussion topic to the page to explore this issue, but in the meantime this page is spreading misinformation. Clearly you have a position of authority on wikipedia. Please can you use it to remove this misinformation?
Thank you in advance, zebulon99 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebulon99 ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is in good faith, and I hope you see it as an intelligent request to have some one or perhaps more people co-author something on the peculiar nature of base-ten. I hold some of the details, perhaps most or all, but disentangling mathematics from personal narrative is something with which I am struggling. Just a short while ago, I almost e-mailed another Erdos #1, and then I quickly ran across you through no particular method that would have been expected to produce this result. I have more justification for being superstitious than anyone else does: My three closest same-generation relatives, cousins between whom I am the sole link, were born on the 19th, 19th and 20th anniversaries of the first three man-made nuclear explosions. This (late-learned) fact, my own self-aware egocentricity, and the sense that my own DOB (6 July 1964) might be something (it is, by removing a factor of four from each of 7061964 and 6071964) stimulated the calculation of (365+1/4)^4 (four years ago). This and the rest discovered is pretty much all elementary (as far as I can see), and it may not appeal to you, but please let me know if you're interested in helping me organize the material and perhaps finding something deeper (in mathematical terms) than what I already have. I'm looking to write a shattering article on the design hypothesis with little in it other than very basic mathematics for a science journal. My published work is very limited (two solutions and one problem in the American Mathematical Monthly). You can get another big coincidence and my e-mail address at OEIS by looking up 3360633, if you would continue with communications by that means. Julzes ( talk) 11:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Not meaning to clog up your space, and assuming neither that you would or would not respond with or without my saying more, I really should sell myself more clearly. Briefly, my history on the subject of Design prior to what I've learned would have to be characterized as angry-at-all-the-stupidity atheist (with mild and mostly liberal Christian family influences and varieties of friends). Mathematically, I was one of four people nationally to achieve National Honor Role status from the AHSME all four years from 1979 through 1982 and I placed 11th on the USAMO in 1982 despite being pretty deep into an approaching need for psychiatric hospitalization. My family was broken in early childhood and there were no attended-to signs I would be prodigious mathematically until I was allowed to skip from Algebra 1 to Calculus by a quick self-study program. That's enough to guage the person; to guage the specifics of the subject, please do write. It would go better with your involvement, in my opinion. Julzes ( talk) 07:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I edited the title of this section from the obnoxious "I want to be an Erdos #2" to the real topic. If 4 is correct, I apologize for my ignorance. Julzes ( talk) 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I will not stop. It is interesting that it is being called the 2010 decade. Do you think the first decade by your calculations was the 00 decade and went from 01/01/00 to 12/31/09? I believe we agree that there are 10 years in a decade. Assuming we can agree that the first day of the first year of the CE was 01/01/01, simple math shows that the first day of the First Decade of the Third Millennium was 01/01/2001! Now the media and a lot of people may have wanted it to be 01/01/2000, but that does not make it so.
I suppose if a person wanted to take an arbitrary 10 year period and call it for example the 2005-2014 decade that would be ok. This article is infering that the 21st Century began on 01/01/2000, that is absolutely false!
Additionally I went back through the history of this page and I see numerous discussions where several people agree that "technically" the years ending in 00 are the actual last year of their respective time periods. The main responses seem to be along the lines that most people believe they end in 09 so they should end in 09.
Another point I want to add that if the 12/31/09 date is correct then the article stating that 2011 is the 11th year of the millennium would have to be incorrect. If it is correct, which it is, the eleventh year of the millennium has to be the first year of the second decade of the millennium. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Based on some of the comments I have seen if enough people agree that 1+1=3, then that is what is should say on Wiki. That is not my understanding of what Wikipedia is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz ( talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the citation you wanted.
Greenwich England is where East meets West at the Greenwich Meridian (0° Longitude); World Time is set Greenwich Mean Time. Remember the new millennium started in 2001.
These are the official date/time keepers for the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoltz ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. In the meantime, I would wish you a Happy New Year! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hope your vacation rocked, and you are refreshed and renewed! KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit to Prime-counting function showed what appears to be WP:COI: User:Werner D. Sand claiming a conjecture as his own. But aside from authorship, I'm really not sure why we have this conjecture on the page at all. What do you think?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A user NimbusWeb, who appears to be a newcomer to the way Wikipedia works, has made a request on the above enforcement page concerning you. I've responded asking him to follow the usual dispute resolution path. Being a newcomer he doesn't seem to have communicated directly with you, so I thought it would be a good idea to let you know what's happening. It's nothing to worry about, just a guy who hasn't yet learned the ropes. -- TS 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
In relation to your edits on biosequestration carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. Please be aware of WP:3RR and WP:REVERT. You might also wish to consider more carefully the terms of the article probation. NimbusWeb ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted your revert on zero year. Regarding the application of zero concept to decades, please see the discussion here. It is addressed as a matter of fact in the counting of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Year_zero#Chronologists. Do you have a source that refutes the math and says that a century is 10 decades +1 the last year of the preceding decade from the preceding century and -1 one year of the last decade? or that Decades start one year after the Century? I would be interested in see that (that's not sarcasm, I would seriously like to see somewhere this has been published). — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
please dont edit war, Discuss here
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Children of God (religious group) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Weaponbb7 (
talk)
02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
[1] - you put one too many tildes in your signature here, I believe. Might want to fix that :) henrik• talk 20:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm dizzy: is there something wrong here: Jason_Sebastian_Russo. Tony (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
of this... I must say that's one of the dafter suggestions for a block I've seen in a while, though. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_topic_ban_or_extended_block_of_User:Likebox. Pcap ping 11:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. I am quite surprised to see your stances on these issues, maybe I have you mixed up with someone else :).
Ikip
01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(refactored) Ikip 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nsaa ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You ask for talk-page interaction - but you haven't made any (since the first)... You yourself has stated on talk, that you have no idea about the weight of this issue.... Are you aware that there is only one reliable source on this? Have you checked the references? Have you also noticed that despite mentions on talk about McKitrick and Coleman, these two aren't stating support? Do please explain how you can determine WP:WEIGHT on this basis on talk. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit-
We are (god willing) wrapping up a debate on the term Creation Myth at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. I'd just like to point out an excerpt from WP:RNPOV:
"Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."
Creation Myth, in its formal meaning (the only one used), is not inherently biased, and makes no judgment of truth or falsehood. As it is supported by the vast majority of scholarly sources, there is no bias in using it. As one editor put it, it would be FAR more biased to use the 'kid gloves' when talking about the christian creation myth, but call OTHER creation myths by that term. -- King Öomie 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur. I think that the {{notability|Bio}} tag is no longer needed there, as the article contains various references proving notability of the subject. I'm quite familiar with the Czech culture and I have some knowledge of Wikipedia notability requirements. Nebřenský meets them as the leader of a notable band Vltava, member of an important theatre ensemble Sklep, and actor in multiple notable films. All of the subjects are known mainly in the Czech context, but they qualify also for the English Wikipedia. If your concerns aren't resolved to your satisfaction (I'm talking about the notability of mentioned red links), please ask at the relevant forum - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic. Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 09:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting (i.e deleting) my additions to this section. Less information, and less clarity, are certainly better. :-| Have fun with your wikitoy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.95.54 ( talk) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I'm a new contributor still feeling my way through the applications, processes and protocols.
What I'm trying to do right now is to start a brief, cordial conversation with you about extending Godel's incompleteness theorem to formal systems other than those that are mathematically based. If this talk page is the incorrect forum / mechanism / way to initiate the conversation, please forgive my ignorance. And please let me know what would be more appropriate.
Re extending incompleteness to language, as you know I wrote a short paragraph for inclusion on the Godel page, which you subsequently deleted. I have no problem with that. But I do take this opportunity to put the case in slightly more detail, as follows:
The major difference between a formal system eg arithmetic vs language is that the former, being a system based on mathematics, involves statements that can be evaluated as true or false against the axioms comprising the foundation of the system. If arithmetic is discreet, language is continuous. If arithmetic is a particle, language is a wave. Arithmetic digital, language analogue.
Obviously, language statements can be evaluated as true or false: eg "the Earth revolves around the moon" is a false statement. But the falsity or otherwise of that particular statement is decided by virtue of reference to data and/or axioms that are not part of language itself, but rather are part of such formal systems as astronomy and physics. So, in a trivial way, proving the consistency and/or completeness and/or truth of language statements does indeed involve stepping outside of the system of language. But, as I say, that is a trivial example, and not really what I have in mind.
So what then is the equivalent in language for "true", "false", "consistent" "complete" "axiom" etc? It is MEANING. In the context of language, MEANING is the proxy for those characteristics (eg the characteristic of being built upon axioms) that in mathematically based formal systems enable incompleteness theory validly to be applied to them. It is only by stepping outside of language into a metasystem (at a higher level of abstraction) that the meaning of words can definitively be assessed for consistency and completeness, clarity and unambiguity.
Semiotics alerts us to the issues arising from the relationships between the SIGN, the SIGNIFIER, and the thing that is SIGNIFIED; between the symbol and the thing it symbolises; and most of all, between the sign, the thing that is signified, and the NAME of the thing. At its crudest and simplest, the issue relates to the difference between the attributes of the thing, the name of the thing, the word for the thing, and the thing itself.
Language is a labelling system, and words are labels. Sometimes people use a different label than has been used previously to describe the same thing, or a different label to that which another person applies to the same thing. It's called "disagreement" but actually it is just different styles of labelling. To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "through the looking glass", a word means whatever the utterer of the word believes the word to mean, no more and no less. And that is an issue of semantics that cannot be resolved within language.
In English, "dog" is the word for a creature referred to (signified as) "Canis lupus familiaris". But say that I, for whatever reason, use the word "ooga-booga" to refer to Canis lupus familiaris. I'm not wrong. My statement is not wrong. The word "dog" itself came into usage through a similar process (ie the process whereby meaning is allocated to "words" in the first place.) My doggish statement may not be wrong or incorrect as such, but it certainly would preclude my having a meaningful conversation with another person or persons about Canis lupus familiaris.
Better example: consider the following 6 statements: 1. "Neptune is the god of the sea" vs 2. "Poseidon is the god of the sea" vs 3. "There is only one God, named Jehovah" vs 4. "...named Allah" vs 5. "...named Ahura Mazda" vs 6. "there is no God or gods, only matter and energy; fermions and bosons."
In 1 vs 2, there is disagreement about the NAME of the thing, and agreement about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= being-a-god-of-the-sea).
Statements 3, 4 and 5 disagree amongst themselves as to the name of the thing. And each of 3, 4, and 5 disagrees with both 1 and 2 about the ATTRIBUTE of the thing (= deity-is- one vs deity-is-many").
The best example arises from a comparison of 3 and 6, as follows:
Statement 3 is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition. Statement 6 is the atheistic position, (ideally adopted by people who understand physics!). The attributes of the thing in the Judeo-Christian monotheistic proposition are: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence*. To put it in plain words, the people embracing 3 believe that the thing for which the word is "god" in the English language is everywhere, all-knowing and all-powerful. And the people embracing 6 believe there is a thing for which the word in the language of English is "Universe", and that there is nothing outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipresent). And that there is no knowledge that is known outside the Universe; all knowledge is known inside the Universe (therefore the Universe is all-knowing). And that there are forces and powers within the Universe (eg Gravity, Electromagnetism) but there are no forces or powers outside of the Universe (therefore the Universe is omnipotent).
So, in the example above, there is agreeement between the atheist and the believer about the attributes of the thing (the three omni...'s). However, there is disagreement about the word (label) to be used for (to be applied to) the thing (ie "God" vs "the Universe"). And there is disagreement about the name of thing: For the believer, the name of the thing is "Jehovah". For the atheist, the thing has no name, but if the thing had to have a name, "ooga booga" would be just as valid as "Jehovah" or "Allah" or "Brahman" or "Fred Bloggs". There's no correctness or incorrectness in assigning names. Nor is there such a thing as correctness or incorrectness in allocating words. The words in English "help" and "assist" are different in spelling and origin, but both may validly be attached to the same thing. And let's not get into examples involving multiple different languages -- that's too complex for my simple brain. (It's language's "hard" problem.)
Fairly recently the English word "cougar" has been adopted to refer to an older woman seeking a relationship with a younger man. Previously, the only valid thing to which the word "cougar" could validly be attached was a large, tawny cat, Felis concolor. Same word, two different meanings, of which the latter has recently been invented by a language user or users.
In all of the above examples, there can be no valid endorsement or rejection of MEANING inside the formal system of language. In order to validate the meaning of words, one has to step outside of language. Within language as a system, there can never be a "true" or "false" meaning: It's the prerogative of the language user to choose a word (and/or invent a new word) to apply to a thing. The choices that language users make often result in poor communication with other language users. New words are constantly being invented, and it can take a while before the use of the new word is known, understood and accepted broadly by language users in general. And new meanings are constantly being invented for existing words, and it can take a while before the new meaning is accepted as being a valid application of the word (label).
The incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the meanings of words cannot, are not, and never will be resolved within the system of language itself. In language, "meaning" is the equivalent of "correctness" in Arithmetic.
What do you think?
Cheers, Nevestisme ( talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.
Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!
Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.
Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Simple reason why I'm not willing to create the redirects: they're already there! 4 T C 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you're wondering, my response is not an attempt at playing dumb; I really can't fathom out quite what I've done to provoke your wrath, or how I've misinterpreted or misrepresented you. -- Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions. Kransky ( talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. Another admin has added a tag here and deserves an answer. (Frankly I find it mildly disruptive that they didn't ask on the talk page first, but that's just my opinion.) I don't know who added that content, and the enormity of the numbers resulting from homeopathic dilutions does astound me, so I really don't know the answer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, please see my response to your comment on Electron Configuration Talk page. Drova ( talk) 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, re our previous correspondence, I can't source the concept --- other than to say it's mine, and published on my blog. This is to ask a favor of you: to review the blog post from a technical point of view, especially the key concepts including "incompleteness" and "inconsistency". If anyone can spot the weaknesses and/or inaccuracies in the blog post, it would be you.
I understand you may not have the time or inclination, so no hard feelings if you can't or won't do it. But I would be extremely appreciative if you could. Even just a 5 minute scan would be great. It's relatively short.
Anyway, if you could, that would be great---you could leave your comments on the blog post itself.
Here's the link: http://cosmic-rapture.blogspot.com/2010/02/birth-of-ooga-booga-what-does-it-really.html
regards
Nevestisme ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i added this to the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ken_Salazar&oldid=343568530
i have not done this before, so i will most likely make a number of mistakes.
my question is:
can i edit an article to relay information about a individual like ken salazar if his position in the government includes a decision made under his administation to allow for the killing of wolves (for whatever reason) ... ?
for example, what i wrote is generalized, but none the less true.
if i had written something like 'As secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar signed an order on Feb 20, 2010 that now allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of wolves ...'
would that have been acceptable, or does it place ken s. in a negative light?
thank you,
eric s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixerics61 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comments are requested on a discussion about whether or not a particular page is a disambiguation page or a stub here. Neelix ( talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, have updated my post, contains no persons names. All content is factual, am happy to put in references to support. Timleroy ( talk) 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The current version of the page is inaccurate. Cauchy did not define continuity in terms of real inequalities, as the page currently implies. This was the reason for my edit. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I started discussion on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) regarding its inclusion. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thisisborin9 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Hey, thanks for reverting the "nonsense" linkspam on my talkpage. Was quite confused for several seconds when I saw it. Thisis borin9 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
(moved to User talk:RyanRetroWickawack#Read the article) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
You flagged a comment of mine as "disputed." What don't you agree with? It's true that when I cut & pasted the url for the reference, somehow part of the url got lost; however if you had clicked on "Binet formulas" you would have gotten to the right point.
A more detailed argument is given in http://www.amazon.com/Fibonacci-Sequence-Beyond-Bruce-Gilson/dp/1449974112, (p.9 ff.) though it would be frowned upon for me to plug my own book in my edit. -- BRG ( talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please let the previous edition I did of Patriarch Bartholomeos I (Bartholomew I), actually Vartholomeos as the orginial Greek letter "B" is pronounced as "V", but the letter had a different ponunciation in latin, and passed to all western languages. There are significant mistakes. For instance his first name is Dimitrios, and not Demetrios. This is so latin and westencentric. Practically every Greek personal names and place names are unfairly always latinized by westerners, like his original first name and patriarchal name for instance. And I do not mean the English translation of Patriarch Bartholomeos I. The "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Greece" is also not correct, because it refers to the country of Greece, and not to ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians, but are citizens of other countries. Otherwise a new category for ethnic Greeks who are Eastern Orthodox Christians should be created. That is why it should be "Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Turkey". Nor is he from Istanbul. He came there as a young adult. He is a native of the island of Imbros in Çanakkale Province.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.66.14 ( talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But really. I don't have to have "Oppose" in front of my comment in order for it to be understood, do I?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You show unusual and unfair bias against Dr. Steven Jones in your comment:
"I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC) "
You removed the statement about his being Professor Emeritus, supported by the BYU.edu world wide web page with his Curriculum Vitae. This is simply a fact, and should be included.
Professor Emeritus is defined in Wikipedia, as a full professor who retires in good standing.
Although Dr. Jones retired in 2006, the BYU.edu web site continues to update his CV, with his latest research, such as the one about Active Thermitic Material on September 2009. Obviously, BYU and Dr. Jones have a good relationship. BYU is under no obligation to post references to his articles about the WTC, especially after he retired. They would not do so, unless they respected his research.
The first paragraph about a living person should be about something major that they have done, not some dubious interpretation about an unsourced arrangement that was private between the parties involved. We have no idea what went on in their meeting, and it is inappropriate to speculate on Wikipedia.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that User:ClimateGate and User:Tony1 mentioned you (!) as an example at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Support. I'm not sure what this is in reference to, but I thought you might want the opportunity to defend yourself if necessary.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
God knows, I'm way open to any ideas. [redacted] [I]n August [...] Neil Brick's S.M.A.R.T conference occurrs. [redacted] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the CMT citation that you tagged with {{ verify credibility}}: I would think that the website of a major television network would be reputable when it comes to sourcing information. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
[4]-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There may be no context available on Wikipedia as of yet, but removing it completely was a bit radical. Please leave it available while myself and the rest of the developers build context on Wikipedia to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.247.17 ( talk) 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Please review destructive edits to Teabagging by User:68.25.103.189. - 12.7.202.2 ( talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit seems a bit of a red flag. The fellow referenced has written some information based books, but I still don't know if it's legit. Auntie E. ( talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So you believe the Constitution is grammatically incorrect when it refers to "the Congress" (e.g., here)? SMP0328. ( talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, I notice that you removed two referenced and seemingly topic-appropriate items from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Here is the first one you removed: "But some of those questioning the government's findings don't consider themselves extremists. "They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries."(CBS News reference at http://web.archive.org/web/20071224135836/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/06/ap/national/mainD8JB6LTG0.shtml Here is the second one: "The group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professional architects, engineers, and related professions, is petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation into the causes of the three World Trade Center building collapses." (Washington Times reference at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns "According to the group's website, 1114 architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition." (A&E for 911 Truth home page reference at http://www.ae911truth.org/ You claimed the first was removed because it was unsourced, but there is a news source. You claimed the second gives the group A&E for 911 Truth undue weight, but that was the only group mentioned in the referenced news article. There is a discussion in process on the article's discussion page. Please take part in this discussion before removing any more referenced material. Thank you. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
[5] It`s not the source, it`s an entire section devoted to three or four lines of text, all i did was remove the section and put it at the bottom of the lede mark nutley ( talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
1 Reason for this note Recently I added to text on Alex Jones, which (I am postulating) you rescinded, stating it did not appear to be constructive. I think we are all interested in the truth. Please tell me what was untrue about what I wrote.
2 Instant Messaging on WikiPedia? It would be helpful if WikiPedia had a way for a recipient to immediately reply to a post someone made (in this case, you). This is the first time I have ever received a comment, and had reason to reply to someone. I was able to track your user page and to post this message here.
3 Quality and Style of Information, _Functionality_, Truth Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but this authoritarian style is, most probably, going to adhere to the most commonly accepted truths, including rewrites of history, even if Wikipedia includes among its subjects such luminaries as Noam Chomsky. In absence of information - or even awareness that there exists controversies - a pupil is likely to swallow whatever is put before him at face value, without even the courtesy of being able to make up his mind. I am beginning to view and make use of discussion pages. I have not yet seen if the Discussion pages are used to keep up with elements of 'controversy'. It occurs to me that, together with any pronouncements, if alternate points of view are not presented, then any media is tantamount to propaganda. I read that you are Libertarian, as I am sure most of us are, who are true and old supporters of the Internet. Altho I have not read up on the perspectives of those who created WikiPedia, I would assume statistically that they probably are, as well. And I am gathering a perspective on the format of WikiPedia, and as this awareness continues, I see omissions (user-generated content), as well as constant and consistent bias, slanted towards the status quo. As we can see with the recent banking disasters, just because someone has a lot of money, or is 'accepted', or mainstream, this 'might' does not make right. History validates this, altho not necessarily the textbooks that are rewritten.
Are we interested the truth? Is Wikipedia interested in the truth? As it involves more than one person (more than just me), I cannot answer these questions when plural people are involved.
Even if we are committed to the truth, problems ensue. If a person's awareness is purely academic, he is merely a dis-interested reporter, without any actual knowledge of the fact(s). I think both of us would say that a carpenter is more qualified to speak on the subject of carpentry, than a person who has only read or heard of or discussed carpentry. An academic, a mere, student should not be the one to dictate to the general public what a subject is. This is pure speculation. ("Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." This is a sad statement, but largely relevant. It reflects the level of our remuneration and respect for teaching.)
I have several backgrounds. One of them is medicine/health. I have close to 40 years experience in what works in these regards. Yet, my experience in medicine/health will not be the same as another's, especially if he is only 'mainstream'. For example, the AMA has been convicted of fraud. It is obvious they have a confirmed bias, and are something else other than 'scientific'. Based on this, we can clearly confirm corruption of science. Most doctors are not real students, because they are not involved in researching the medical systems that have been employed in centuries or millennia past. In this sense, they are indeed only 'practicing', and have 'opinions'. Also, in strict truth, they promote 'remedies', and do not admit to 'cures', nor do they allow others the First Amendment to speak about 'cures'.
Arthur, in these many years I see what works, and what does not work. I have been interested in the Merovingian's 'Why?' Looking for answers, I have found them. I was compelled to look past the veil of mediocrity and ignorance. In doing this, I found my answers. There was no other way. Either I accepted and allowed and promoted the non-answers of the currently-in-force (literally) medical profession, and their abysmal track record, or I got down to brass tacks and did some research. I chose to find out. Abraham Lincoln made remarks to the effect that what you search for, you will find. Without searching and remaining aware of a possibility, it is unlikely you will be aware of the real meaning and import of something, even if it does cross your path. Knowing what works, and being able to do it, gives one power. This type of power is also used by the media forces (one can add AMA to that list) who are an entity existing to perpetuate itself. But this is not valid if they harm others. The media forces are in business to make money. Thus, they are materialistic in nature. Materialism, the making of money, is their #1 objective, and media is the means they use to do it. Vision-Mission-Objective. Motive-Means-Opportunity. Manipulation is what they 'know' how to do, and keep themselves in power by doing it. They are successful by their own definition. But what if one does not define 'success' as having the same statistical sicknesses and disease as the average person in the population? What if one does not desire to be 'mediocre'? What if one desires 'health'? This is not taught in the textbooks. In the textbooks, lots of little facts are doled out, as by rote. Yet, the big picture is left up to the student to piece together. But the student is so busy continuing on with the prevailing winds and dishing out the popular version of drugs and 'interventions' and 'invasiveness' that he takes little time to question the whether the 'authority' he has on supposedly 'good authority', or good faith, promulgated by his inherited teaching is, in fact, supreme, or only a statistical truth, all dependent on subsuming ONE set of assumptions.
Humans sit in a crossroads. Most of what they know is rooted in the shallow past, as shallow as the grave they shall soon occupy. Allopathic doctors occupy this grave even sooner than the common populace. Perforce, they do not have a functional handle on health at all. Experience shows they do not empirically and scientifically conform to the dictates of health. They are thus examples and proponents of a different system than pure health. So, do they speak from an advanced experience of health? No, they demonstrably do not. If fact, they demonstrate the opposite. This is not a conundrum. This is quid pro quo. Nature proves the thing of itself. It is what it is.
Arthur, I don't know you. So I can't claim to understand you. I have found, however, that I can trust Nature, if I trust myself to become more aware of it. I would say that this principle works for everyone. And I also say that, unless you can do something, you are not qualified to make pronouncements about it. I specifically say this because I have recently seen the debates about amateurism versus professionalism. And, as you can see by this note, I believe those who can do something should be allowed to speak about it, whether it is motorcycle design and repair or foreign travel or any discipline. I also think that it is not beyond the bounds of propriety to ask questions about the veracity or consistency of a group of people following a given discipline, as to what kind of efficacy that discipline has upon its followers.
Track record is track record. With regard to physical health, most children (and I include adults who are/were still children) have not done much in the way of scientific experimentation with regard to the input = output equation of diet. In science, we believe in the equations of cause and effect. Yet, how many have actually done serious experimentation on this subject? As far as the human population is concerned, we have the Merck Manual to give us statistics. Sad statistics these are. Clearly, consumption of animal and synthetic fats builds up on the vascular system, causes circulation problems, heart problems, lung problems; the leading causes of death. Yet, your average family doctor does not follow the dictates of Primum Non Nocere, causing no harm, and does not explain to his patients the damage done thru consumption of animal products. Neither does he recommend to stop this practice, and clean up his patients' lives. Why? Would there be a conflict of interest against his profession, if his clients were healthy? What would his $500,000 tuition be worth, if his clients had no need to come to him? If his clients were well, he'd be out of a job. If you are aware of the status of doctors in China centuries ago, you would be aware that they were paid only if their patients were NOT sick. Doctors were paid on the basis of performance, and were NOT paid if their methods fail. These days, it exactly the opposite. Doctors make money when their patients are sick. This is designing to fail, inviting corruption. This is negative science. The incentives are all wrong. It is a system designed to fail. This system follows the law of entropy, as do the doctors that practice it, who are demonstrably worse than average in the aspect of health. One gets what he deserves.
I have heard song writers, and many ordinary people say, "We are not meant to know." If we are not meant to learn and grow, then why are we alive, if we are only meant to suffer? If there is no way out, why should we even try? Why not cut your loses and give up now, ahead of the game?
Yes, while entropy is, indeed, a force to be reckoned with, nevertheless, if there is something else than fatalism and chaos in the world, then we must strive for it. Since the human being is clearly a construct following a higher Order or organization, then progress, if not complexity, is possible. If this kind of success is possible, it stands to reason that an even higher level of success is reachable. If it is reachable, then development demands we must strive for it. Alfred Korzybski, b1879-07-03, writes of 3 levels of Organization, plus more can be inferred. Plants are Energy Binders. Animals are Territory Binders. Humans are Time Binders. This is not speculative. Plants, animals, humans actually DO these things. So we are not talking theory or mere academics, here. We are not talking about first order logic or first order predicate calculus of possibilities, but rather Lambda Calculus, functionality, what works.
In my years of following health, I have learned. Where once I was aware of what allopaths were capable of doing at the time (which has not functionally or substantially changed over these decades), I have since become aware of better methods. You can't stand still in awareness and grow. Effort has to be made. I've been interested in making that effort. While in grade school and high school I moved forward at the rate of two years every year, as measured by the national scholastic tests. I have not stopped. Modern 'medical' science does not progress at this rate. Not even computing science moves forward this rapidly. In decades past, I was following artificial intelligence together with psychology and computing science and medical research, and speculating on simulation languages. I found that the human functionality in psychology can be described as programs that can be modeled in lambda calculus. Thus written as an equation, they can be more clearly understood. I have since picked up neurolingustic programming, which was developed during the same time I was working on developing functional models of psychology. I developed a successor to NLP, but found it functionally a more powerful technology than the average self- or group-motivated person could be safely entrusted to use. Only the more developed ecology aspect of this system am I free to openly talk about.
An exception to the 'sitting still' rule is meditation. To this end, I'd like to point out Walter Russell. If you've not read him, I suggest you do. Same with Noam Chomsky. Read most or all of everything they wrote will expectedly serve you well.
So my two cents are: If you know what you are doing, you can do it. And if you can do it, then you can talk about it. Only in that position are you in the position of being able to teach. As Randolph Stone said, "What works, works!" I'd go with that!
Let me know what the official policies are with respect to WikiPedia. I'm sure on this end that we'd all like to know and understand. Perhaps there are other alternatives to WikiPedia that are broader in scope and encourage more collateral understanding. Please point them out.
If I can be any help to you in your quest for growth, please let me know. As I am rather new to being involved in WikiPedia on a formal level, I have not posted my interests, and have not even been to my user page. Perhaps I will figure this out in short order. I haven't taken any tutorials, as yet. Perhaps you can give me some suggestions or links?
I look forward to the future development of WikiPedia and other developing models.
I hope I will get a response to any message you will write, as long as I am logged in to WikiPedia, as I would very much like to hear your reply.
Regards ~Mardana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardana ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I did not know there were other instances of total progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings. Can you please provide me with your examples? - Tzaquiel ( talk) 09:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I'm commenting on your edit summary here, rather than the article's talkpage, b/c I assume this is just an oversight on your part. Anyways the cited Salon.com article does specifically mention Exxon funding the Center: "The father and son team of Sherwood and Craig Idso hail from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., which has also received money from ExxonMobil," from page 2 of the article. Yilloslime T C 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Time to do something about this idiot? Has been trolling the premises a bit too much, and the blatant advocacy is not acceptable (imho). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 14:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello - you have removed my addition to the talk page which amazes me. Surely talk page contributions should, unless spam / vandalism etc, be free from such censorship? As a mathematician you should see that what I submitted was factually correct and a valid point of view, not to say demonstrably correct. DesmondW ( talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain why my edit was not totally correct on the trig article, just for my own clarity. Bgreise24 ( talk) 14:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
AH, I see. So technically speaking 2pi is a period of tangent. I just thought it should be made clear that it was not THE period. I'm glad we came to a wording that satisfies both scenarios. That was my first edit btw, so thanks for helping me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.115.136 ( talk) 23:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- FASTILYsock (TALK) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Could you please explain why this reference and link to source were removed? I read your message about my "experiment" with Wikipedia, however, the information I submitted is true, relevant and verifiable by source. I realize that this is my first contribution, but your edit message seemed a bit of a canned response and I was hoping you could perhaps clarify your reasoning for its irrelevance. Thank you. Dustin Thacker Dlthacker ( talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, FYI: I refactored your comment about Brian Pesta being fringe. I have a strict 'no commenting on other editors' rule in that mediation (and it is sorely needed) so while I'm glad you've come to participate, I do need you to stick with the same mediation rules that everyone else is following. thanks. -- Ludwigs2 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I think you missed the absence of a "not" here, since being an ancestor of is not transitive. Paul August ☎ 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
How about something like this: "Tucker has developed the Strength Of Case Scale (SOCS), which evaluates what Tucker sees as four aspects of potential cases of reincarnation" (my addition being "what Tucker sees as")? Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin, as I assume you are well aware, that article is currently under a 1 revert restriction ("Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period"), which I believe you have violated by the following two edits:
With both edits, you re-added the vague and contentious (see also [8]) term "government organisations". I hope you will be able to address my concerns in the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which I had reviewed before making my edit), especially by naming other "such" government organizations.
Here, I'd like to ask you something else: Why did you revert my correction of the NYTimes link? Do you see any advantages in the format
instead of
Or did you just not take the time to examine my edit fully before reverting?
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I do not see how the word "vindicated" is "peacock". Your preferred "cleared" is not really a synonym. I took great pains to add a citation directly to that word, thereby replacing the "peacock" tag. The source cited specifically says they were vindicated. That's verifiableand as we know the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. <>Multi‑Xfer<> ( talk) 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, would you please be a little more tolerant of the newbies? All s/he did was offer some links on the talk page. Yea, they are not RS, but everyone deserves a chance to learn without feeling bad. Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I have previously complained that many of the articles posted on individual biographies, especially of politicians, and of various organizations exhibit profound bias toward their own ideological position. Most of the time I come up to such a page, I leave a flag and perhaps a note on the discussion page. Yesterday, I chose to do otherwise and have gone through a number of sources to update and correct blatant biases in a couple of articles. One was Pete Wilson, former governor of California. The other was Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is the oil industry version of the Tobacco Institute. Both articles had been written largely with platitudes, in glowing tone about the good that has been done by these paragons of wisdom and public service. Sarcasm aside, there had to be a change. Encyclopedic biographies are not supposed to be hagographies and allowing single-issue organizations to submit their propaganda as referenced material is simply inconceivable. I spent a lot of time on these two revisions, checking and rechecking sources and posting only the information that I either knew to be factual or that was directly quoted from the sources. If I might have occasionally posted something that was not neutral, it was largely because of the frustration with hagiographers combined with the volume of information that needed attention--believing that any of us are so pure at heart that we can get away with a substantial volume of work without exhibiting occasional biases.
I tried the posts to be neutral, but, since virtually all information on both pages was heavily biased, much of what I inserted could be seen as criticism. Unfortunately, some neutral information that does not jibe with the myth will always be seen as biased criticism by supporters. No exceptions here.
My corrections on Pete Wilson saw a minor correction by one "Arthur Rubin"--a correction that appears to be valid and one that I missed because I left alone (aside from minor grammatical fixes) a piece of information posted previously. In this case, assuming the revised version is accurate, we can easily agree. However, later today, virtually entire portions of the page were removed by user "JoinArnold" who has had a history of similar behavior on the same page. Basically, he struck down ALL information that was critical of Pete Wilson's performance as Governor and even took out direct quotations from Wilson himself concerning serious issues and important mileposts. If JoinArnold is not banned from posting for his antics, it will be a travesty.
Then I looked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute page. To my concern, I found a full reversal posted by the same "Arthur Rubin", purportedly removing bias. Upon further review, I noticed that some wording could have been improved to avoid bias, but the changes where I made them needed to be made. A blank reversal was simply unjustified. I only want to mention a couple of instances.
First the biases. At one point, I appended the phrase "...leading critics to attack CEI as representing conservative and corporate polluter interests" to a list of organization funders. Although the claim that the funding came from the foundations that support exclusively conservative causes (Scaife, Earhart), and companies that are usually identified as opponents of "environmental causes" (Ford, ExxonMobil, Pfizer), perhaps it was gratuitous of me to actually connect the dots and I should have just left links to the respective Wiki pages, if they exist. Removing this particular line would have been reasonable, although I am not sure it was a bias on my part (as the information is accurate).
Second, I replaced the word "fame" with "infamy" in the sentence, "CEI's global warming policy activities gained infamy as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials." Again, my correction is accurate. The CEI's commercial made an absurd claim that increased carbon dioxide production is beneficial to the planet, accentuated by an equally absurd punchline, "They call it pollution. We call it LIFE." If they said that Earth was flat, no one would have minded describing the attention as "infamy". But if "infamy" is biased, so is "fame". Both are value-laden. "Notoriety" is more neutral in some contexts and less neutral in others. Perhaps "gained attention" would be the most neutral improvement--whatever it may be, it should not be "fame". So, please, make the correction--a meaningful correction--but don't assume that some hack is sitting at the computer trying to poison the well.
I do take back one correction fully. I replaced words "said of" as the verb in the sentence, "In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith offered a much derided opinion on global warming." Smith's opinion was indeed much derided, but it was not universally derided. So, "said" is probably as close to neutral as we are going to get, although I probably would have preferred "stated". On the contrary, in another sentence, I replaced "stating" with "claiming". The word "claiming" is not value-laden--it represents someone making an unsubstantiated statement, which is exactly what happened here: "It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government." This sentence corresponds to an unsubstantiated, self-promoting claim on the CEI's website. It is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion, meant to challenge those who do not see it as valid. In other words, it is a claim. I fully stand by the correction I made here.
Another absurd correction that someone made earlier is replacing the word "consumers" with "humans". "Humans" is a word from the domain of science fiction, not encyclopedic discourse. In encyclopedias, we usually say "people" unless we want to specify the kind of people we are talking about, e.g., consumers. I have no problem with "consumers" being gone, but replacing it with "humans" is puerile. If I were grading student papers (which I do, occasionally), I would purge it. If I were editing a manuscript (which I do professionally all the time), I would have corrected it. So I did the same here--the word "humans" in this context is absolutely inappropriate. Reverting the entire revision restores "humans" back where it was. Not good!
Another idiotic correction made previously was replacing CO2 with CO2. No, sorry, the symbol you are looking for is CO2. CO2 is a convenience usually reserved for a typewriter (and for a newspaper headline). Oh? We are not working on a typewriter? Then we should not be using CO2 and place the correct symbol in its place: CO2. Again, not good!
I am not going to go through every thoughtless "correction" that a full reversion by "Arthur Rubin" produced. But my advice to Arthur Rubin is, don't assume that others are dumber than you or that they are out to get you or someone else. Thoughtful corrections require thoughtful further corrections, not a magic reversion keystroke. And a thoughtful editor must also recognize that some neutral, apparently objective words can become weasel words in some contexts (as "free-market" is on the CEI page--it is not neutral, it's a dog-whistle term).
Please take that under advisement as you return to CEI page, as you promised. And, if you have such an opportunity, please help ban JoinArnold from posting partisan scribbles. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 23:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep up the good work. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
You made an RV at Types of Rape just recently. There's some discussion going on around that at the talk page that is relevant to this. Maybe you can contribute there as well? Thepm ( talk) 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edit. Surely, "recovered memory" and "repressed memory" are not the same thing. The former is the later, but not vice versa. -- Taku ( talk) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand licensing. Wikipedia and CZ are licensed under cc-by-sa. Therefore you can freely mix contents with attributions of course. But we're giving credits. Finally, the consensus can change. If you have a problem with the existence of the article, then the correct path is to take it to fad. Please try to be more constructive. You're not being reasonable. -- Taku ( talk) 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Well-formed formula. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
You are good people, trying to help clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles. Guy ( Help!) 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
Hey Arthur,
I'm new here so maybe I'm off-base, but there are a lot of links being thrown into articles like pickup artist and The Game by Neil Strauss that are purely commercial. Is there a way to set some sort of alert for these? Namely afcadamlyons.net and thegameneilstrauss.com (among others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HateToLoveMe ( talk • contribs) 01:33, April 13, 2010
They both appeared together in TV shows at that time, and were covered by British press, so I think it was as notable as other parts of the Uri Geller article. However, maybe you can move the sentence to a better place of the article. -- Jordiferrer ( talk) 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Jag förstår din oro, men din felaktig bedömning av den nordamerikanska unionen bygger på dina falska amerikanska känslor. Som jag påpekade, är du som talar engelska, vilket är olyckligt, men för att underlätta din omräkning till svenska språket, jag ska hjälpa dig att anpassa sig till befälhavaren språket. Något sätt, finns det inget sätt att du vet vad du pratar om. Förhållandet med roboten skall bekräftas bara tills du accepterar att din inblandning i den svenska affärer inte kommer att förbli ostraffade. Detta är din enda varning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan ( talk • contribs) 00:58, March 23, 2010
Arthur, FYI, Alexander Razborov is one of the world's foremost CS theorists. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a number of attempts to have the article title changed to no avail. When this war first started it was limited to South Ossetia and as such the title was legitimate. The moment it expanded beyond South Ossetia and into Abkhazia and the west coast a number of editors began suggesting the name be changed to reflect the scope of the conflict. At the time there was no clear alternative name and it was subject to such constant edit-warring that the article was move-protected. Since then the only recourse has been to have discussions on the title in the hopes of reaching of a consensus. Unfortunately, no matter how much time passes and how much stronger the case for a change gets a group of editors with an extremely biased position always flood the discussions to prevent a change.
In the most recent discussion I started on the current talk page one editor supportive of a change decided it was a lost cause because he felt any discussion would see a number of pro-Russian editors flood the discussion and prevent a consensus from being seen. So far it seems the only way this title is ever going to be changed is by an admin's decision. I gave a decent summary of the arguments for a change a few months ago here, more importantly it contains the most recent arguments for keeping, and this earlier discussion showed strong support for a change, though there was some funny business done with the discussion by a non-admin. The admin reviewing it did however say that objections based on neutrality were invalid and only left the issue of descriptiveness and common name as no consensus. However, I do not see any legitimate argument for keeping this article and plenty for changing it. This is something I am sending to a few admins who appear to have no involvement in the article or the name dispute in the hopes of getting some authoritative position on the current title. If you can think of any admins who might be more interested in this then feel free to say.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: I posted draft revisions for the U.S. dollar "Value" section in my sandbox. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JasonCupertino/Sandbox JasonCupertino ( talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
As an administrator I find it unhelpful to Wikipedia that you reverted back to an inaccurate edit (without even any discussion no less). In England we have a parliamentary system, NOT a parliamentary democracy. I don't profess to be knowledgeable about the Political system in California. Please see the Wikipedia article Democracy. Thanks. Vexorg ( talk) 03:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see your just going through my contribs and having a moment. I have reverted you revert because your reversion was removing accurate information. <sigh> Vexorg ( talk) 03:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted some edits on the Decimal page, with the comment that "none of the sources are reliable". One of the sources was The Mathematical Intelligencer, which I would have assumed to be reliable, i.e., I thought that although it was less technical, it was meant to be no less scholarly than Springer's other journals.
Could you confirm this one way or the other for me? Many thanks.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, first, please check out Chinese numerals. Chinese shí (=10) has no positional value and so have many other Chinese numerals, neither. For self-evident facts like these, there are no more reference necessary than for pointing out that the Pyramids of Gizeh are of pyramidonal shape. About the other reference, why shouldn't it be not reliable? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Decimal. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Gun Powder Ma (
talk)
22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You recently reversed an edit I had made to "Aliyot" being redirected to "Torah Reading" from the original link which was to "Aliyah". I am simply asking why my edit was reversed seeing as I though the links page was inaccurate. Do you want me to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin1414141414141414 ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
I would like to know why you removed my additions to the Sierra Club page pertaining to the recent (and important) controversies on the widely-agreed upon 350ppm emissions targets and Carl Pope's implicit endorsement of Clorox. These were not hit pieces, but fully-referenced and legitimate additions to the "controversy" section. I have been a Sierra Club member on and off for many years and have no particular agenda against them or Carl Pope; I just read read some interesting articles in The Nation and, in lesser detail, in Mother Jones that I felt were relevant to an overall view of the club. My edits and references were removed without comment or justification. I would like an explanation. Thank you. DuendeThumb ( talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reported Canada Jack for edit-warring and your name was mentioned in reference to past conduct. Be advised I did not report you, but your conduct may be questioned as a result.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You said not to add trivia to the Number 22 page. However, the page is loaded with trivia (what are Jersey Numbers, and how many chapters in Revelations?). My entry was just a test to see if the data would be accepted, and quite an interesting piece of knowledge for people interested in studying the Bible. I don't see why it is not fitting for the Religious heading. Please explain how my entry is different from what is already posted there.
Thanks FarAwayBen ( talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)FarAwayBen
Thanks for the references. That's useful information for me. I didn't did deep enough into the Guide. I'll try out a couple that should fit within the guidelines in the sandbox and then post them to see if they are ok. I'll try to do more homework in the future.
The numbers on jerseys seems frivolous. It would make more sense to note something like "there have only been 22 triple plays/perfect games, etc in baseball history" Something to that effect. Am I getting the right idea? I'll read the guide. I appreciate the feedback. FarAwayBen ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I originally inserted this information in here some time ago based on world-wide raw birth rate or fertility rate data I ran accross. In retrospect, the years I used were deciphered by POV. This time I tried to get some published data on baby booms in various countries, which resulted in the latest edit. For example, I don't think anyone in Ireland considers their baby boom from 1946-1982, though the data may suggest that (to some). Ledboots ( talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, I was just wondering why my edit of the correct calculations were reverted to the old wrong ones, is this just normal procedure for every edit or is something else up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.126.185 ( talk)
I am sorry, you are completely correct, I was skimming the article for something else when that paragraph stood out, I had simply forgotten that oldtime notation. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please see Talk:Route inspection problem for a discussion of common graph-theoretical terminology, specifically path, trail, walk, and circuit. Thank you. Zaslav ( talk) 05:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I signed your comment on AN/I you forgot to sign it so I had to hunt through to find out who wrote it. I appreciate the proposal. I made a comment on it (and gave it its own subsection since its a concrete proposal. I mostly agree with what you wrote.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully documented all my work on Jagger's talkpage. My work came from a request by Jimbo Wales which also is documented. I posted on Jagger's talkpage that you reverted 16 citations. FYI. -- Morenooso ( talk) 16:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I'm aware WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, however WP:V explicity states damaging information should not be left in articles on living organizations. This is often ignored for the consensus that WP:BLP applies only to people, which to my mind is crazy - it's not OK to libel individuals, but it's perfectly OK to libel groups of individuals? What's the rationale behind that? -- Insider201283 ( talk) 09:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this passage: "One of the key differences between virtual worlds and virtual events is that a virtual world is available as a persistent environment, even after the live part of the event is over", I believe the content contained at http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/download/294/248/ has been misinterpreted.
Virtual events most certainly remain available as a persistent environment after the live event is over. In fact, it's standard practice of virtual event platform vendors to keep the virtual event persistent for 90 days. While there are many differences between virtual worlds and virtual events, this is not one of them.
References: [1] http://www.foliomag.com/2009/virtual-events-come-their-own - review the section labeled "Archive Etiquette" near the end of the article.
Dshiao ( talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. You made an with a summary of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher". What was the meaning behind that summary, and why did you use the words "CalendarWatcher" in that way (with no space between the words, and with both a capital "C" and "W")? HWV258 . 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
please take a look at the last two edits on Chair by 76.122.147.156 and deal with the situation as you deem appropriate. i can't entirely dedide if he/she's a vandal or an idiot who really thinks that's relevant. thanks. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur. At the above SPI, someone is trying to recall all the problematic editing that has occurred over the past three years, and you may have some recollection of that. It is argued that some individual IPs may be persistent enough to be worth blocking. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if you could really be serious here [10], and exactly what purpose you see in expressing such encouragement....
Do you really think these are correct [11]?:
All of the above are either highly subtly incorrect or highly POV... For instance the British court did not identify 9 errors - they addressed 9 claims of errors (which everywhere in the court text is in scare-quotes), the ruling is quite clear in stating that most of these aren't errors, but that many of them have contextual issues, that aren't addressed in the movie. (for instance 20 feet is entirely correct, but without the context of a timescale, it may be misleading).
It is a good thing to encourage newbies - but without addressing the problems with their contributions - you are setting them up for a meet with a hard reality later, when they haven't learned what exactly is problematic in their editing... and thus are prone to continue along the same path. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I share your concern about some of the people on the 99 range (as i've mentioned before) - but is article talkspace [12] the correct venue to vent such? As a side-issue from that, i'm rather concerned about the users who are using edit-comments to promote their viewpoints (ie. by stringing together various links not related to the edit). -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I am updating Vaclav Smil's Wiki page and would like your opinion on the changes. I like to make sure i am doing it according to wiki rules.
Please advise.
Best, Olibroman 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for yor quick reply, Arthur.
I have designed his website but i will either list reliable sources for all the claims made here or delete it altogether. I will also pair down his articles to 20 (great suggestion).
Questions: can i delete a section that was posted earlier by someone else since new andmore accurate info is now available tehre?
I learned one thing form this discussion for future posts: this is not a promotional page!
Olibroman 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman ( talk • contribs)
If you have a few minutes to look over this and ensure i am using reliable sources, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "this needs references?" I'm not stating anything that hasn't already been brought up in other Wikipedia pages, as the links show in the posting itself. There are no references apparent for the two films above the posting as well. So I don't understand your need to remove this when I'm simply stating "facts" that have been brought up on numerous other Wikipedia pages. This is not speculation on my part, these are straight from the other pages. I would appreciate this being added back because it took me a good deal of time to put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliejas ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see [13] for proof of the existance of "millillion". Black Yoshi ( talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
What was your logic behind the deletion of the mention of the 2005 UK election on the page 2005? It was just when I saw the mention of the Japanese election and George Bush being inaugurated for a second term I felt that the UK election was of similiar informative value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Arthur,
Why did you revert my added red link to partial permutations in Noncommutative logic? I was under the impression that (some) red links are a welcome way of bringing attention to needed articles, and partial permutations were certainly something I wondered what was while reading the summary. I'm putting together a stub article on partial permutations now, does that make the link appropriate?
Though I've been making small changes to Wikipedia for a while, I'm still essentially a newb and would appreciate any advice.
Thanks Dranorter ( talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I stumbled upon your revert here (I'm the IP to whose rev you reverted). Just a note that I honestly don't see anything wrong with Djadvance's edits. iirc, "PUA" was introduced in The Game as the acronym for "Pickup artist", not for "pickup activity". Oh well, not a big issue. Re-revert if you care, or don't if you don't. -- 83.135.88.230 ( talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. I am new at trying to edit. Can you tell me what are the acceptable sources to make this page less biased and more factual? Astrohm ( talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)astrohm
Thank you for your message following your removal of my corrections to the 911: In Plane Site Corrections.
After viewing the film several times, and carrying out surrounding research, I came across the Wiki article. The article describes several criticisms of the film supported by no citations or references - as can be seen on the page. This is clear bias.
Please answer the following questions
1. Have you seen the film?
2. The article makes claims of criticisms and counter evidence, yet provides no source for these claims, no references and no citations. Is this not clear uninformed bias?
My edits were to remove these unfounded statements about the film.
I have removed the line "Films such as In Plane Site and Loose Change only refer to the smaller hole on the second floor." Before trying to restore this line, please state publicly where in the film this claim is made.
The film can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion here. I haven't suggested the film itself is evidence that it's claims are true. My edits are made to ensure that claims about the film (i.e. claims about the content of the film) are accurate.
With regards to adding citations to the claims section, this should be optional. The article should accurately describe the content of the film. It should not require citations that either prove or disprove its claims.
I am disputing the way in which the word "clear hoax" are used in this sentence: "Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of clear hoax claims – i.e., the involvement of pods, missiles, "flashes", and tanker planes – with valid questions about the attack, is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association".
This reads as if the article is stating these claims to be a clear hoax. It does not read as if it is reporting the wording used by those making a claim. In actual fact, the use of the words "clear hoax" are used by those that beleive that no aircraft ever hit the Twin Towers. Those with this viewpoint beleive the video footage of the planes was somehow faked. Perhaps using hollywood style effects etc. Therefore they suggest the footage of the planes was a hoax. DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to edit the claims section of this article so that it more accurately describes the questions the film asks. The page first stated: "The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories," I attempted to change this to: "The film examines evidence relating to the events of 11th September 2001, and questions the official explanation of what happened on that day." The aim of the film is to ask questions about the official explanation for the events. It does not ask questions about conspiracy theories. Please explain how my change is incorrect. Also, as you appear to be determined to leave the original statement in place, please tell me one of the questions the films asks about conspiracy theories. In summary, I would like to know how the previous version is more accurate than my revision.
I would also like to note why you are protecting many of articles claims of criticisms, even though no references or citations are supplied. Does this mean you think it is OK for anyone to add claim of criticism to any article without sources? DoctorNeutralNoBias ( talk) 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that is silly that you will not include her in the May 2010 deaths. Your loss... she was a key sports figure... too bad, so sad that your rules have to be this silly. I have been editing on this site for almost 5 years! Jdcrackers ( talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Last night, you removed multiple external links to web calculators providing useful free services to many users of scientific functions. Many wikipedia articles on topics that have calculational aspects provide links to web calculators. On most of the articles where you removed this information, this was the only calculator link, and web calculators for many of these functions are rare. Please cite an official policy justiifcation, explain your actions in light of these points, or engage in a conversation as to why you believe this information to be inappropriate. Ichbin-dcw ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think i made a reasonable contribution, but you didn't even have the courtesy to give a good reason for reverting my edit here. Do you mind explaining yourself please before we engage in needless edit wars? I would like to reinsert this paragraph if you can't give any good objections. Thanks Iwanttoeditthissh ( talk) 08:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
main|Anno Domini}}
might be a reasonable approach. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)I realise that you reverted yourself, but I'm still curious as to why you changed my user page. Mk5384 ( talk) 06:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. 3 things: 1/ With respect to your involvement/uninvolvement, I have left a note at the filing party's talk. 2/ In your statement, you stated you were willing to comment and become involved - your comments don't appear to suggest you are involved in the content dispute or that you have become involved since the time the request was filed. If I am mistaken, please state so. 3/ Just a reminder to sign comments you make at the Rfarb page so one can follow when you made a particular comment etc. Cheers, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr Rubin,
Respectfully, I object to your having reverted my edit of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The passage in question:
"It advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory.[6]"
Linking to the article," The Weekend's TV: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, Sun, BBC2 George Gently, Sun, BBC2"
This article presumes that any "conspiracy theory" must be false from the get-go, making no reference to the detailed scientific analyses or published scientic papers of Mr. Gage and his colleagues. Rather, the Independent article is nasty, provocative and disrespectful to people who have a divergent, rational, scientic opinions about the collapse of the World Trade Center. The article is not suitable as proof of a "conspiracy theory" in this context.
You also restored the term "conspiracy theory". Dictionary.com lists the following definitions of "conspiracy"
1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Clearly, these apply to the scenarios propounded by both NIST (under the direction of the Federal Government) and to that of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. In both scenarios, two or more people conspire to commit malicious acts in secret, thus rendering the characterisation "conspiracy theory" useless. You cannot differentiate the two theories on this basis and claim objectivity. Science is dispassionate, and Wikipedia should be also.
In the interest of facts, not conjecture,
Be well and thank you for you time.
Rabbitink ( talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Rabbitink
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2012 apocalypticism. Since you had some involvement with the 2012 apocalypticism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Greg Bard 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You are being discussed here. Cardamon ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr Rubins,
I have spent a good part of a day expanding the page on Anniversary particlarly relating to the use of Roman fractions. I am disappointed that you reverted those changes within 30 minutes of me having made them.
Prior to me making edits on this page it had already been marked as original research. This related to discussion already on the page relating to use of multiplication of Latin terms, which another editor was clearly already questioning. While there was some merit in the proposition as already put on the page, it was not pertinent to the use of Roman fractions.
The page as it was, also proposed that pure multiplication of root terms was used for developing all Latin numerical terms - the page gave several examples (which I left intact for comparison) of how other numerals are derived - for example it suggested that 350 was derived in Latin as half of 700 - Semiseptcentennial: semi- (half) x sept(7) x cen(t)- (100) x centennial (350 years). While at face value it seemed a reasonable proposition, to develop other numbers like 925 based on this thesis would require developing Latin terms for half of 1850, or a quarter (half of a half) of 3700!
There are multiple existing sources on Wiki pages that identify how the Romans treated fractions. For example, 350 years is 3-½ centuries or in Latin terms is ½ century on the way between 3 and 4 centuries. For another example, 925 years is a quarter century more than 9 centuries.
A good description of Roman fractions is found on the Roman numerals page. This is supported by Wiki pages on other situtaions where the Romans had to deal with fractions - coins, areas, lengths, weights, etc:
Therefore, most of the substantiating references were sourced from within Wikipedia, with multiple links added, and are robust discussions that are highly cross-referenced. I had not used external references as the internal pages were well constructed and extensively cross-referenced.
I also converted the text list to a table to make the alternatives easier to compare and assess. This meant that the derivations were not lost in the Notes sections at the bottom of the page, making critical review easier. I did not remove any of the alternative derivations of previous authors/editors and placed the Roman fraction versions directly alongside the old propositions to enable the reader to compare and form their own opinion. The only proposition that I removed was the discussion made that pure multiplication was the means to implement Latin terms and which had attracted the concern of a past editor. Even then, I did recylcle the previous author's comments and highlighted that the reader just needs to be careful when they are multiplying, adding or subtracting.
I have endeavoured to highlight alternative Latin terms that might also be applicable, and have also indicated where one term was derived based on another documented example. The important issue was highlighting the way that Roman fractions were treated rather than the old discussion suggesting that multiplication was the only appropriate method. Therefore leaving the page as is was giving defective information. Your action in reverting the page to the erroneous information was therefore disappointing as was the suggestion that the information that I added was original research and not referenced. Cruickshanks ( talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I was hoping that such an organization really existed and that I could join it. [14] Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I was addressing the examplefarm tag. Anyone can tag, but does anyone take responsibility and do the thing the tag calls for? Knodeltheory ( talk) 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and great job on 81 (number), you re-deleted "In mathematics." But you're the mathematician with the Erdos number, so you tell me if 81 really isn't a perfect totient number nor a member of the Mian-Chowla sequence. Knodeltheory ( talk) 19:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Videos_as_references Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll raise your point about whether we should use the YouTube info or original publisher info when citing video. Can it wait a bit until we resolve the procedural issues? My understanding is I was to cite the original data, but I may have misunderstood. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I've ceased. Its on talk now, pending response Lihaas ( talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The deletion of Generation Alpha I find rather incorrect. Yes it is a new site and maybe I am not with it when it comes to creation of new pages hence why I would be sure that others would have added to it as they have done on other pages.
Generation Alpha (2010 to 2024) is the new generation from the Generation Z (1995 to 2009) and there should be space for Generation to build upon without editors constantly deleting what "they" believe is shoulod be there.
As far as I know this has not contravened any rules by wiki. -- Throttler ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I lied about what Arthur? All of my contributions to the article originally were entirely neutral, and then some zealot wanted to insert David Duke into the article. Your problem with it is what exactly? Greg Bard 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I'm a long time tax professional and have enhanced several articles. In trying to improve Wiki, I have tagged some articles that are advertisements (e.g., one for a Malay will writing service). I'm getting pushback such tagging on Robin Hood tax, written apparently by and about a group in UK that is lobbying for a tax on financial transactions. The WP article is clear advertising, but with some trimmings (weak pro and con) to make it not quite under the spam guideline. My comments were disputed by User:FeydHuxtable, who seems to be an admin. Am I all wet? Please have a look at the article and leave me your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dr Rubin. I'm trying to keep the Gore effect summary scrupulously neutral so I have updated your last version to read: Gore's global warming presentations in several major cities have been associated with exceptionally severe cold weather, a juxtaposition since dubbed "the Gore Effect." This approach avoids deciding who originally linked the term to the concept and declines to speculate on the motives of all those who have used the term. I appreciate that it is more vanilla than some would prefer, but IMO the summary needs to stay stable because it has become part of the AfD discussion. Is that OK with you? - Pointillist ( talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
WillBildUnion ( talk) 14:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you have been getting a lot of negative feedback. Whatever.
But how dare you to place a warning by claiming of edit war? The subject of the matter is relevant and is not disputed. If you keep stalking i'm gonna complain about you. Yes I am gonna complain about you.
I do see that you are a jewish, but that should not, religious beliefs should not be reasons for your admin actions.
Caesarion and son of god is talked here talk:Son of God
WillBildUnion ( talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You've deleted this section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article several times now:
We've been carrying on a discussion on the article's talk page, but no one seems to have a good reason for excluding this. I've responded point by point to your objections, and to the objections of other editors, but the reasons for deleting these lines seem to be very weak. On you last deletion diff (third one above), your reason for deletion seems to be that there is no reason to mention this in the article. Could you please expand on that on the article's talk page? It's seems obvious that this is relevant to the article. Thanks. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please be more specific than (i) no explanation for your first deletion, and (ii) "still not right" for your second deletion. What's not right about it? Duoduoduo ( talk) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
He posted an alternative theory on Jesus's lifetime in this talk page. No sources, has had time to present them. I'm guessing his own OR, and his actions are an attempt to get that idea some more acceptance. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I accuse you of stalking, vandalizing and terrorizing edits and of trying to dominate Wikipedia. WillBildUnion ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Giving a barnstar to Balloonman for the effort in closing Gore effect. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first:) -- SPhilbrick T 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
climatological phenomenon known by the scientific community as the Gore Effect It is in the ref, why have you tagged as not in citation given? mark nutley ( talk) 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that your recent edit in talk has dispatched my last response to Hypocrite. Take a look please? Thanks JakeInJoisey ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok I see that there are complaints about this guys sources and stuff. What I don't understand is if it says he made a speech or wrote an article, and you link to the video of the speech or the site where the article is posted, how is that NOT a reliable source? I mean there he is delivering the speech! Lol There is the article right in front of your eyes! It doesn't get more reliable than that. What am I not understanding? Help please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghamlet ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverting and setting your clock to 24 hours is exactly what 3RR is about, you appear to have no support at all for such reverting and imo it would be better to accept the changes have consensus by the fact that no one else has any issues with them. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You should consider in this case discussion first to see if your desired replacement of removed content has any support at all, you also should attempt to explain your exact issues with the content that you have added the content issues template to the whole article, you appear to have as yet not explained your exact issues so as other editors can address them and resolve them and remove the template, if you would clarify and update any issues you presently have on the talkpage , that would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding the AN3 report about you, I have declined it as there are only two reverts which you did not self-revert and two reverts does not make an edit war. Please note that did the technical capacity exist to do so, I would have removed rollback from you for use of it during a content dispute. From a quick glance at your contributions, you have used it several times in the last day on non vandalism reverts [15] [16] [17]. Wikipedia:Rollback feature says that "administrators who misuse rollback may have their administrator privileges removed." Please take care to make sure that you don't roll back non-vandalism. Thank you, -- B ( talk) 12:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I made what I thought was a constructive edit to the Pro se article. If you didn't like the See also for the "The opticon" article then you should have removed just that part and not revert the whole edit. I hope you don't do this a lot because you're going to discourage good contributors. Slightsmile ( talk) 14:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, all of my changes are absolutely correct. This drug is in Phase 3 FDA-approved clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are completed and done, therefore they have shown safety and efficacy. Why are you afraid of the truth being given to the public? I have all the court documents, all of the clincial trial data, and everything to prove it. I provided links to EVERYTHING I posted.
Phase 2 trials are underway in Japan also. Japan has also greenlit Phase 3 trials.
Do we need to sit down and have a face-to face meeting? What city do you live in? I'd love to sit and chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to explain yourself Arthur. You need to go point-by-point and explain why you changed perfectly verifiable data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What is you r problem? If you have a problem with the Dvorit Samid addition, delete that not ALL of it. What is your phone number? We need to have a little chat. I am not letting this or you go. I have al the legal documents to prove that Dr. Dvorit Samid filed dupe patents, (aside from the fact that they are public domain) Even if I took the time to link it all, you would just delete it - WHY? What the f*ck is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't wait Arthur. I can't wait. June 2010 (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Where? Where are they? (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANP 2010 ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
See my two posts at the end of the Notability? section of the Discussion page. Jsondow ( talk) 15:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I responded there, in part by asking for an example to justify your repeated claim that my mathematical edits were "wrong" or "left the article less correct". Jsondow ( talk) 13:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
hi arthur
why do you think it is an advert?
leo aka halloleo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halloleo ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin,
I added new categories and some important lists of international rankings of South Korea. I don't understand why Arthur Rubin deleted this important list. As following his recommendation, I edited and added Edit summary of this article. I assume you deleted this because of its lackness of edit summary. Thus I did it. Please re-consider the deletion of this article. Thank you. Polk540 ( talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I would appreciate if you do not delete the link of "Masters program at University of Texas at Dallas" as; firstly it is not a spam and secondly it is helpful for the students interested in Supply Chain Management Degree program.
Thank you, Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinesh18omy ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
Not sure if you have had time to read the two sources I have provided. One mentions the ban, the other states the official name in the UK. The blood ban source at no time states what the official term is in the UK, only the second source, the Parliamentary Inquiry 2006. As I am sure you will agree, the UK Parliament is a reliable source. This is the official name, I have provided excellent sources, but if you are confused please contact the UK Government or NHS. One more thing, CFS/ME does not stand for two disease, it represents one, CFS/ME UYBS ( talk) 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
not a reliable, or even reasonably credible, source
I have no problems with such a statement, but I wish you would look first and hold your gut reaction till after; you are likely to change your mind! The words symmetry and prime number distribution don't often get put in the same sentence, other than to state the two don't go together. www.primepatterns.wordpress.com - it's there for anyone to see. Credible? I am happy for people to look and comment! I think the words jawdropping, mindblowing and frankly unbelievable come to mind
WW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.240.44 ( talk) 13:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
in wikipedia across pages (for eg: in Months/days) the suffix is given amiss with many editors citing WP:MOS. In the interests of consistency.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
0 (number). Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
121.74.8.48 (
talk)
03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice catch. Not sure I would have recognized that as what it was, and it was important, clearly. I need to study the bot edit diffs more carefully instead of taking them as gold. Thank you for watching that page. So quietly!? Duff ( talk) 04:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Please consider commenting here Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Smells like socks [18] [19]. Looks like the Mystery/Lovesystems people this time around. Do you know if anything has been done other than blocking spammers? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think a discussion of the relative merits of pi and 2pi as fundamental named constant, and the reason one was chosen over the other, is something which would be very fitting to be present on Pi. My recent contribution may not've been spectacular but I was hoping it'd be expanded on etc. Or do you genuinely disagree with the premise? 4pq1injbok ( talk) 16:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, I am puzzled by your reversal of my edit, on which you commented
My understanding is that the living person you are referring to is Michio Kaku, whose book I referred to. Since I referenced his book, where the statement appears, I don't understand why you call it “unsourced”: would your objection be withdrawn if I included a page number? I am asking this for the purpose of better understanding Wikipedia practices. As for the article, I will try to include the essential technical point without referring to any people living or dead. Sincerely, AmirOnWiki ( talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel sorry for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.32.84.114 ( talk) 05:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: you appear to be stalking me and reverting several of my (unrelated) edits without any explanation on the Talk pages. One more and you'll get an ANI. -- Noleander ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop it, Arthur. Your four reversions today of my four sets of see-also links from four articles cubic equation, quartic equation, quintic equation, and septic equation are not justified by your unexplained comment "revert unnecessary links". Many "see also" links are not vitally necessary—they are helpful to some readers.
Based on this as well as some of the entries in your talk page you clearly are trolling, which is "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict." "Note that some behavior listed here [as trolling] has been taken as disruption of Wikipedia in Arbitration Committee decisions."
In addition, you appear to be wikihounding me, perhaps because I previously complained ( here and here that you had engaged in unexplained reversions that you yourself ended up admitting were unjustified. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by ... disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
The fact that you are trolling and wikihounding me is shown by the content-inconsistency but editor-consistency of your reversions. For example, in
cubic equation, you deleted see-also links to
sextic equation and
septic equation because I had added them, but you did not delete see-also links to
quartic equation and
quintic equation because I was not the one who added them. Likewise, in
quartic equation, you deleted see-also links to
sextic equation and
septic equation because they were added by me, but you did not delete the see-also links to
cubic equation and
quintic equation because they were not added by me. Thus you have disrupted my legitimate effort to create consistency in these see-also sections.
I have asked David Eppstein to arbitrate this. Duoduoduo ( talk) 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur: could you weigh in on a discussion involving your recent edits to Iraq sanctions, on the discussion page there? Thanks, DougHill ( talk) 01:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I can see from your archives that you are heavily biased, Jewish, and a troll. Perhaps you are trying to 'defend your faith' however it has no place here. You cannot subvert the meaning of words. It will never succeed.
Recently you removed one of my definitions. Why? Because it wasn’t referenced from the 'highly' credible Dictionary.com and many so called 'American'-English dictionaries. I have much experience with comparing these dictionaries with English ones, believe me, i wouldn’t use them to prop up a table. Most commonly, their grasp of the meaning of words is... shall we say... like that of a developing country. Most often circular definitions are the order of the day. And their neglect for the history of words causes many problems with their defining them.
"A government is that of the body politic which exercises governance over the territory which it claims to represent. 'Government' may be either within the territory or outside of it. It manages custodianship over all public property, administrates law and may prescribe public development. It may be comprised of several organisations and heads of state, or one, generally, representing the interests of natives to the territory through policy."
There is nothing wrong with what i attempted to add to the definition. I can only assume that it wasn’t to your liking. Well, its a good thing that your liking doesn’t matter, otherwise wikipedia would become nothing more than your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.236.251 ( talk) 12:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know why you reverted my contribution to the September 11th attacks article, when it is widely known that cell phones can not be used in flight for various technical reasons. Ignorance is strength ( talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'm sure you will agree that the aircraft were traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, and were not at low altitude until just before crashing; some of the purported calls took place while the aircraft were miles above the ground. Ignorance is strength ( talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Author, please comment prior to reverting material that was correcting unverified information with verified information on the xx90s year articles, per both Decade and Century articles. Right now, there is a confusion about the year where Centuries start and where "decades" start. They are not a one-for-one as some colloquially assume. This confusion resulted in an illogical situation where the list of years (as Wikipedia articles) contradicted with the actual definition of a referenced term "century". My edits simply clarified this per general consensus on both decade and century articles without addressing the general debate over the Millennium date, which is a much bigger issue all together. — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's an odd sequence of events:
JulesElise also seems to be supporting Chambers109 on 2012 phenomenon, reimplementing the same text as Chambers109 after you twice reverted those edits. I find this very odd given that Chambers109 was created 1 minute before JulesElise first edited within the subject. Yworo ( talk) 01:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to add sourced content, remove unsourced content, and generally make useful edits/revisions to the Melissa Farley page. However, I see you're undoing a lot of the edits I was making. Let me explain further about these edits, in the interest of reaching consensus and improving parts of this article.
I still think there should be at least a small statement about Ronald Weitzer's public and professional position on prostitution. Readers are entitled to know something more about the person who is criticizing Melissa Farley other than just that he is a "sociologist." Weitzer has advocated for a two-track system of prostitution in numerous sources. I do not think it violates BLP to identify Weitzer's stated professional position on prostitution. It is a documented fact that he holds these views. I did provide one such source (something he himself wrote) and you removed it, along with my added content edit. http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/LT_weitzerRDY_06-19-09_RIEMNEJ_v17.3e9356f.html Can you please explain why? Here's another: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000223 If Weitzer's criticisms of Farley's views/studies on prostitution are to be placed on Farley's page, then in the interest of NPOV I feel his own publicly-stated views on prostitution should be briefly disclosed there as well.
The paragraph beginning "Farley has also been criticized for accepting significant funding from anti-prostitution organization..." continues to need significant revision. The first sentence is entirely unsourced and in fact it does not even say who is doing the criticizing. I do not believe that anonymous, unsourced, and blanket accusations such as this are allowed on Wikipedia, especially on a BLP page. If you go on to read the content of footnote 14, you will see that Jill Brenneman does not criticize Farley for her funding sources. She doesn't even mention it. The bottom line is that there are no verifiable sources or documentation for the content in the first sentence, so the statement needs to be removed entirely and quickly (especially since this is BLP). Furthermore, footnote 14 provides this factual information: "Her research was supported 70% by Prostitution Research & Education and 30% by the Trafficking in Persons Office of the US State Dept." I believe NPOV requires both grant sources to be identified in a neutral statement just like this. The current writing is biased toward a particular POV because only one of the funding agencies is identified, followed by an unsourced accusation against that agency. The current assertion that the government TIP office has "an outspoken policy which conflates prostitution with trafficking" is speculative, biased, and unsourced. It should be removed. EconProfessor ( talk) 03:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I would like to continue my conversation with Mr. Rubin here for now. It is well-known that Weitzer and Farley have fundamentally different views on prostitution. This difference makes Weitzer's own position on prostitution relevant enough to disclose here when presenting his critique on Farley. Weitzer's views vis-a-vis Farley's views are documented on his Wikipedia page, as well as places such as Pro/Con which place them on opposite sides of the debate. http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=120 He is not just some random sociologist who has independently reviewed Melissa Farley's work. Weitzer's views on prostitution should be at least briefly mentioned so that casual readers are aware that he publicly holds an opposing position to Farley. It should not be a violation of BLP to re-state what has been judged acceptable to publish on Weitzer's own Wikipedia page.
Regarding TIP, I would like to reword the "conflate" phrase because there is no reliable source for that claim. EconProfessor ( talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sampletalk ( talk) 07:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, Thank you for the welcome. I think you are right about removing my additions to "First Order Logic" and "Church-Turing Thesis" articles. Actually, I was trying to attract a public attention to this research, and Wikipedia is not the right place to do this. Though, I think this research has deep philosophical implications, can be easily described by simple analogies (like the comparison of conventional vs. alternative medicine), and paradoxically is not well understood by professionals.
Regards,
Andrew Gleibman (Sampletalk), Israel
STOP CHANGING ALL OF MY EDITS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM. Wjfox2005 ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
"proof is probably accurate, but requires a source, per Wikipedia rules", why does my contribution violates Wikipedia rules?
I did add a source: Instructor's manual. But the lemma I cited is just a sentence in the Instructor's manual. Actually in Instructor's manual, it is just a claim. I hope you can give a solution, because I think the proof is very hard to find, and useful for someone, maybe. And I was not copying all the content in the Instructor's manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugthink ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I see in
Number you have changed my additions of {{
frac}}
to {{
fracText}}
with the edit summary that "consensus seems to be that fractions are [used in this manner] in math articles".
I am more than happy to accept that; I changed them as part of the GA review because there was not specifically anything on the talk page to indicate this consensus, so defaulted to MoS. Could you please point me to the consensus of which you speak?
I have no doubt you are right; I myself was a little surprised that this had not come up before. A comment about the consensus at the GA review would be very handy, and I am more than happy to accept it.
Incidentally I've raised the subject at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Fractions as it seems to me that all it says is to put fractions in "fractional form" without defining what that is, and even in the section WP:MOSNUM#Fractions only says what to do about common fractions, which leaves us high and dry dealing with other fractions – for myself I would not regard a⁄b as a common fraction, for example.
It's probably bad form anyway to say that the rationals are of the form a⁄b without saying that a and b are integers, and some would say they have to have other properties e.g. being the least common multiple, the denominator being a nonzero natural and so on, which is covered here adequately but not in the table saying a rational is of that form. That's probably OK, the table is there to summarise rather than define.
But I am also a little queasy that the words "fraction" and "rational" seem to be used rather interchangeably in this article.
I'm happy to move this to the article's talk page if you think better, but thought I would get your opinion first.
Thanks for all your hard work here and everywhere (at least one editor notices it). Si Trew ( talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here [21], and I look forward to reading your input. Mantes ( talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, Im bad at this. I'm a dui lawyer, thats all I do, and I agree with you that stuff is taken from cites; but if you read closely, youll see that the conclusions drawn are completely unsupported by the numbers; in fact DUI numbers have stayed stagnant for fifteen years without any adjustments. dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidrosenbloom ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete all the new edits, many of which are related to latest research? Ahtcan ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, left you a message regarding our edit disagreement at Talk:The Age of Stupid/Archive_1#end of release section would love your thoughts (still think it isn't in the reference) :). James ( T C) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I thought you'd be interested in the proposed change to the John Major Jenkins page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have attempted to revert edits back to your version, but an editor keeps changing back the dates for Generation Z with only one book as a source to back up his claims. All sources I have seen, including magazines, demographical research, and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s as the starting date for Generation Z, especially 1995. The editor making these changes is 3bulletproof16 ( talk). I'd like to see what your opinion is on this. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
This was probably a waste of time, but I did what I could. Tide rolls 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am quite new here, i'm very interested in the project and looking forward to working with it.
I though ran over something in the user name policy, that said that you should not use tha name of a well known person.
My real name is Michael Nicholas Jackson. It's not me who gave myself that name - blame my parents.
I would though ask you to change the username to nicky86, if that's possible, please. MichaelJackson231 ( talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If I can keep the username, then I wouldn't care too much. MichaelJackson231 ( talk) 17:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be gracious of you to remove the personal comment about Hewitt, part of this edit. Surely we can explain why the material is inappropriate without commenting on the person. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've replied at Portal talk:Contents. Sorry for the length. Please feel free to ask anything, there, or here, or my talkpage. I want us all to be having a discussion; not an argument, as this topic keeps devolving into! Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to understand tempts to find out. Mathematics represents reality in the immaterial form. You say 'it's possible there's something there'. There is plenty, please ask. P.S. In the article 2n or 1/2n should read 2 or 1/2 to the power of 'n'. KK ( 213.158.199.138 ( talk) 09:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
It is very important to use the edit summary when you revert, especially when you're reverting non-anons. It helps avoid edit wars and encourages discussion, so please try to remember to use the edit summary. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 22:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what your thoughts were on the recent date changes on the Generation Z (as well as Generations page. The current change lists early 1990s as the start, but that runs into Generation Y. I made it clear on the discussion page on both those pages that 1995 was the date most used by demographers, researchers, media, etc. Apparently, that editor seems to think I am going by dates in "my book," whatever that means, and accused me of vandalism. I thought it was wrong for him to change the dates in the opening paragraph of this article without any discussion. His sources are only one or two, and one of them is a site for parents and pregnancy. I don't think that is a reliable source. I thought since you contributed to the article, you would be interested in giving your views. I also let other editors know about this. Thanks for your contributions. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview ( talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Ollie's talk page isn't available currently and he was the last person to edit the page so I wanted to ask you.
I'm trying to figure out what I need to do to make my page appropriate. I have now removed all references to specific virtual worlds and companies and yet it got removed again. I need it to stay up for my class.
The assignment was to add to the article the training section to discuss virtual worlds in training. What can I do to make it acceptable?
Thanks,
jjoseph177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Arthur,
I incorporated your suggestions and Mr. Ollie removed it again. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoseph177 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a complaint at WP:ANI about the edits by Hiberniantears which you reverted at Richard C. Hoagland. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism from Hiberniantears. You may wish to weigh in on one side or the other. __ meco ( talk) 18:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the Phipps Conservatory & Botanical Gardens external link. It clearly does not violate WP:ELNO 11 as the video was made by a professional news magazine production syndicated nationally on PBS. I have further explained my reasoning on the the article's discussion page. CrazyPaco ( talk) 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought we were getting somewhere, and then TT had to go off on another no-compromise rant! Sigh.
Is there any chance you could reply to my first question, above his comments, at that thread? Much thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I (anonymously) edited the redirection "Twin prime conjecture" -> "Twin_prime#Polignac.27s_conjecture" to go only to the "Twin prime"-page, but you changed it back. My reason for changing it is that the whole article, more or less, is about the twin prime conjecture (it is mentioned already in the second paragraph and several times later), and I think that somebody searching for "twin prime conjecture" is not looking for Polignac's conjecture (which has its own page, where "twin prime conjecture" links to the "Twin prime" page). Mathboy ( talk) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You might be interested in this message on User talk:213.158.199.139:
The Giving Pledge is an LLC with its own website. Citing primary sources is allowed. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 ( talk) 11:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I replied to your reply there. The Transhumanist 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Transhumanist 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice from your contributions that you seem to do a fair bit of vandal-patrolling - bravo for that. Often, when reverting, you commendably give a reason for your reverts. Please would you consider turning 'often' into 'nearly always'. Thanks in advance, Trafford09 ( talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur,
I just wanted to say thanks for your recent comments (and earlier comments) in the ArbCom case file on Race and intelligence. I'm very much of a newbie here and I have learned about a lot of subtleties by reading your posts. I see by surfing by that you also edit articles about mathematics. I wish I had more familiarity with the sources to do more editing of those—rather, I rely on those to improve my knowledge as I know work as an elementary math teacher in supplemental classes for gifted students. Your work in looking after those articles is much appreciated by math learners like me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Trotter Prize (Texas A&M), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview ( talk) 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what this was about. The subject was clearly listed in the target article. The entry is a valid use of a dab page especially as the two Steve Jones get mixed up frequently. Dawnseeker2000 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. May I ask you why in this edit, again you didn't state in the Edit Summary your reason for reverting? Trafford09 ( talk) 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair point - but there were 7 intervening edits between your first & 2nd revert, so there's always a risk that such a revert is misinterpreted (& I hadn't seen your subsequent edit), so it never hurts to say e.g. "see my last revert" or "see article's talk page" or something similar. I'll chill a bit now :) Trafford09 ( talk) 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It is an atheist affiliated organization as is made clear on its website. Freakshownerd ( talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't realize that the template was so poorly coded that it would spill all its guts out like that if substituted. I fixed the problem, but I didn't find that the template was being used on any articles, just archived talk pages. User:Plastikspork went ahead and fixed the parameters for me. Axem Titanium ( talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I am confused, I have been told several times not to use trade names. I corrected Kværner-process to Dry Arc process because I will also be adding another posting on a Submerged Arc process. If the two are not properly differentiated there will be confusion.
I am new to this and am doing what I was told by your colleagues, thanks for your help. Globalreach1 ( talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this revert. I'm not sure whether we should say definitively that GPS is not affected measurably by relativity or not ... my mind is open. But I'd like any claims that it is or isn't to be backed by a verifiable source. I'll let readers decide whether to believe any particular source. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As you know, you challenged the reliability of the official website of The Giving Pledge, and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#The Giving Pledge. The full discussion is there, and any response to my message here, should be made there, since we both prefer such discussions to be kept to a single place. But I'm drawing your attention to that noticeboard because I want to be sure that you didn't miss the following direct response to your comments.
- I don't see any evidence that the web site is reliable for anything except the organization's press releases. I admit it's unlikely that they would say anything libelous about their donors (even though, being supported by Bill Gates, they may have an impressive legal force at their command), but we are more restricted in making unsupported statements than the law allows. My take is, until a consensus is established here, we should only list pledgers if that pledge is reported by news media, or clearly by the pledgers themselves. For many of the ones you've added, reliable sources for the pledge are available. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- We use cites like this all the time for uncontroversial claims like "so and so serves on the board of XYZ foundation" or "so and so is an associate editor of a journal". Even when another source is available, that doesn't prevent us from using the source. We can just cite both, helping the reader along to the charity org (especially if the newspaper doesn't include a hyperlink). This isn't and shouldn't be a controversial subject, we don't need to read WP:RS parsimoniously. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as you can observe at the BLPN, Protonk ( talk · contribs) isn't the only one who disputes your assessment of The Giving Pledge's reliability. If you don't raise any further issues at the BLPN, I trust you'll end your practice of reverting good faith edits that cite The Giving Pledge as the source. Thanks. 67.101.7.201 ( talk), formerly editing as 67.101.5.165 ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You expressed some concern over outlines, and specifically about some of them that you thought could use some improvement.
In your opinion, which outlines need the most work?
What improvements are needed?
I'm available to work on them.
I look forward to your reply.
The Transhumanist 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding this revert: >90% of the entries on the page concern events which happen in fictional works. {{ In-universe}} seemed to be the most appropriate tag to work on that. I wasn't aware that date articles were exempt from the usual rules on in-universe content. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to add the following to the 'Alternative names' page.
- CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The Minister of State, Department of Health, has stated that "we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. [6]
Unfortunately Sciencewatcher keeps removing this, and has now been joined by WLU. It is the same source and information I used to back up the official name on the 'CFS' page, and the acceptance of the WHO classification is stated by the Health Minister in Parliament. As shown on page 5 of the Parliamentary Inquiry CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK.
Sciencewatcher keeps stating that Parliament is not a reliable source, which clearly it is considering it is the Government speaking for the NHS, NICE, MRC, & The Blood Service, which they control. Basically it is a ridiculous argument.
The alternative names page should have this information, as clearly it is an official name.
Arguments I have used against their POV on the talk page :
Kings College - Kings college are not Parliament and still have had to use the official term for their heading, CFS/ME. Also, Parliament controls the NHS and therefore the official term, unless you are saying that they are lying, which of course would be ridiculous. Meaction UK - Not relevant to the facts. WHO - Is not relevant to the official term used in the UK. It is however relevant to the UK classification, which is neurological in accordance with the WHO ICD-10. Parliamentary Inquiry - States that CFS/ME is the official term. (Use of any other name is not relevant to the facts, as they state that the official term is CFS/ME) Parliamentary document - The statement is not the opinion of a single parliamentarian. It is a statement by the Health Minister on behalf of the NHS. (ie. NICE, MRC, UK Blood service) The Health Minister at no time states which is the official term out of the alternative names she uses. DWP - Is controlled by the Parliament. This issue is not what other names are used elsewhere, but what is used officially in the UK. As proven, UK Parliament states the official term to be CFS/ME. NICE - The official guidelines use the official term, CFS/ME.
Again, Parliament has stated that "...hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK." There it is in black and white. Again, Parliament has stated that they accept the WHO classification of CFS/ME as neurological, they have not said that it is a neurological condition, but that they accept the WHO classification. Black and white fact again.
Annette Brooke is not the Health Minister so I suggest you re-read the source. The Health Minister, Gillian Merron, speaking for the DOH & NHS, states "I want first to put on the record that we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. " Fact.
This has no bearing on the ME, CFS, CFIDS, or PVF sections. It is about the official term in the UK.
As this is a world page, it has to reflect the terms used throughout the world. CFS/ME is the offical term in the UK, and therefore needs it's own section. It appears that you are ignorant to how the UK Parliament & NHS work. Parliament speaks for them, they control them, and all other bodies within the NHS. I again suggest you re-read the sources provided very slowly.
I would again appreciate it if you could take a look at this.
Many thanks UYBS
—Preceding unsigned comment added by UYBS ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
the page Green New Deal I feel it definitely requires more information, it is made of just one concept with regards to the creation of the Green New Deal without considering the developments whatsoever. I feel it should have more information on how it has progressed to what the Green New Deal is today rather than just mentioning where it was born. Just a thought, let me know your views.
Thanks and regards Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
With respect to Politics of global warming (United States) please make yourself familiar with the three revert rule. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
When adding tags, as you did here for example, and the issue is not immediately obvious can you add you concerns to the article talk page? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
re:
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc."
from WP:MINOR. -- Gwern (contribs) 10:41 29 August 2010 (GMT)
You tagged SOoCC [22] apparently in error - GCSP isn't a political organistaion. Could you clarify this on the article talk page, please? The tag has now become hostage to consensus William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
can you advise how to make the article increase its notability. There are references to publications with the United Nations Environment Programme, the intergovernmental International Institute of Refrigeration and more. Can you help me understand what it is missing more specifically. I am now working in bringing in links from other related sources such as Green New Deal, renewable energy etc. thank you for your help,
Regards, Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see your wikibreak notice, and just wanted to wish your wife and all concerned a speedy recovery and enjoyment of good health. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Did you see the talkpage discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:External links#Off2riorob excluding open wikis under 12? Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You are telling me that I'm failing to discuss on Chiropractic. Please go ahead and check my contributions for the past 9 days I have done nothing except discuss that article. If I'm a bit slow to respond to some issues, that's because I have things to do outside Wikipedia. QuackGuru has been requested not to contact me on my talk page due to personal attacks, and I have reverted his edits on my talk page just as he reverts all my edits on his talk page. He knows this. The article talk page is not the place to resolve personality issues and I will not go into that on the article talk page.-- Anon 10:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Dr. Rubin: I am a bit disappointed that you had to delete my many hours of work on the topic of Modular Arithmetic/Functional Representation, but I have discussed this topic at length on the Discussion page under the heading by the same name, as I proceeded to contribute improvements to it. Could you please address my concerns by reading my extended "blog" there?
There has been little focus on this topic for at least six months, when I first contributed to it, until this week: I don't know why the sudden interest on this topic's content. Until a few days ago, no one had noticed some of the horrible math that had been posted there, in that same section.
I'll look forward to getting your feedback on the Discussion page. Toolnut ( talk) 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I posed the question in a discussion related to User:William M. Connolley if there is any administrator left, who is using his real name and is notable enough to have his own article. I may in fact be in a need for such an administrator. Is there any way to list or find administrators with articles? I could not find any list, but my 11 degrees of separation brought me here. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
Sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate your time. I won't repost it. My mind is distraught with the notion that there are instructors translating limits of infinity as being DNE. Unfortunately as a private tutor of 21 years in AP Calculus and Physics I have to contend with an instructor who doesn't understand this. I was hoping there would be a place where reason could have its say and this misconception could be avoided by future students seeking clarification. As a side note, I even used a TI-89 ROM on my computer to calculate a limit, took a screenshot of it, printed it out, and had the student take it to her instructor. .. and still the instructor insists that the answer on the calculator is incorrect. Her interpretation of infinity is equivalent to DNE !! Help me free the children from this incompetence. Oh the madness !! :)
I have no doubt that your sense of humility has aided the path to your own enlightenment.
Your counsel is appreciated.
Your friend,
James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.234.206 ( talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah 9 11 was carried out by 19 cave dwelling Muslims who are openly funded by CIA. Even the Jundallaah terrorist leader admitted it. Wikipedia is for fact suppressing fagots like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.114.241 ( talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I sure missed that one (the non-sequitur "without") when I was looking it over. Good catch! Thanks for cleaning it up! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, about September 11th, I made the change (which you reverted) after discussion with another user. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
The debate could have gone on for days...Thank for understanding Moxy ( talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC) |
See User talk:Teacherbrock#Major changes must be discussed. When I saw you referenced the header, I put it back as a subsection. -- Avi ( talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, please include this study in the opening of the XMRV page. It is undeniably relevant to the discussion, and it is currently the most prestigious publication among all others relating to XMRV, MLV's and CFS. Come on now, be reasonable. Who else has a greater reputation among the authors than Harvey J. Alter? For Pete's sake, he's the director of the NIH.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107.abstract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgladden2 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
WHY????? CommanderWorf ( talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I recognize you as a user on some of the pages I edit, so I thought maybe you could help. I recently added my response to this Straw poll on Wikipedia. I can't believe I hadn't read anything about "Pending Changes." I read that it was a two month trial, but when were these changes proposed? Also, sometimes I get a bit overwhelmed with all the information on here. Are all announcements posted on Wikipedia in a Watchlist options box? I seem to recall an invitation made for those Wikipedians who lived in my town to get together during last Christmas break, but I can't recall where that was posted. CreativeSoul7981 ( talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, you tagged the external link to www.southpolecarbon.com as rv spam. As South Pole Carbon Asset Management is the world's largest developer of high quality emission credits, which companies and individuals use to become carbon neutral, I think a link to that website makes a lot of sense. Could you please explain why you took out that link? Thank you very much. SPpenguin ( talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
Did you know: my paper was updated: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1808 Please, see my thanks for your help in Acknowledgments section. Looking forward to hear your comments about revised Lemma 1. -- Tim32 ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes on Income tax in the United States. I'll incorporate in next draft. Thanks especially for the tip on CFR references. The ECFR has been driving me nuts since it was introduced this year. It's supposed to be current within 1-2 business days (see its main page for general info and top of each ECFR page for update date). Many of the links to old CFR that had dated editions no longer work. I will go thru looking for edits I've done and clean up cites to remove SIDs, after I test a for a few days to make sure the links are stable. A favor: could you test a few? I'd like to be sure they work from different IP addresses. Two non-new articles with new ECFR links, not yet updated: Corporate tax in the United States, Circular 230. One with SIDs removed: Alternative Minimum Tax I'm a tax guy, not a computer guy, and no spring chicken, so sometimes I feel a bit challenged. Thanks and best wishes, Oldtaxguy ( talk) 03:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Das Baz ( talk · contribs) added this yet again today - unless you can think of a reason not, I'm going to warn him (not with a template) about edit warring and tell him to take it to the talk page to get consensus before adding it again. Dougweller ( talk) 08:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Why nobody notify me until all reverts done? And why you put the talk on an hidden place, instead of the article's talk page? I was completely isolated from the discussion! -- 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Just as you said, "matrix polynomial" is more often a polynomial with matrix variables, rather than with matrix coefficients, but
is clearly a polynomial with matrix coefficients, rather than a polynomial with matrix variables! So the article is COMPLETELY "Polynomial with matrix coefficients", rather than "matrix polynomial". -- 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Explain yourself on Talk pages, please. No desire for this edit warring behavior. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not be insulting with trite comments like "completely wrong" as there are have been arguements for the edits, with logic, arguable maybe, but "completely wrong": no. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been doing a lot of reverting on Charles G. Koch recently. You may want to cut back a bit so you don't run afoul of 3RR. Will Beback talk 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please justify why you have removed the link that I put up to the Spearman's calculator. 86.160.232.184 ( talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a specialist calculator that provides step-by-step workings of how to calculate your correlation coefficient using your own entered data. It cannot be implemented on Wikipedia and it is free to users. I find it is a great resource (for learning) that other Wikipedia users should have the opportunity to access from the external links. Please reinstate this link. 86.160.232.184 ( talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm editing with a smart phone at the moment which is awkward. I tried to revert POV about coal mining but made an error. Can you review and take appropriate action? I don't want to get into an edit war and this is an ongoing problem. Thanks. Cullen328 ( talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the image in the article slap, it would be much appreciated if you discussed its inclusion on the talk page until we come to a consensus, instead of edit-warring to keep it out. Thank you. ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read WP:PRIMARY, and there is no absolute rule against use of primary sources. The only rule is in adding interpretation not found in primary sources, or in basing entire articles on primary sources. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 22:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your edit to this template, I'm not seeing the lack of concensus that you see, and it was implemented as well as could be in the absence of a more robust solution. Perhaps you could offer some more input at the talk page, because as it is this seems rather like a drive-by revert, which isn't terribly helpful to anyone. Regards. PC78 ( talk) 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Yes it should since Nanogold is a registered trademark of a private company. The statement that colloidal gold (a general scientific term) is otherwise known as a trademark of a private company is difficult to digest when there is no basis for the statement "otherwise known as." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
here i was talking about non-controversial things. thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 23:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've probably been too directly involved with him to take action, but this is getting to be clearly edit warring to get his entry into various date articles. Dougweller ( talk) 04:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Charles G. Koch. Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Abductive (
reasoning)
21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
"(Again, I'm not stating that you do presently even contemplate that, although you have done it in the past.) "
Sorry for being coy about it - I think you mistakenly picked the wrong section title over at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. We are not discussing scientific consensus, but opinions by learned societies (we had a section on consensus in the article with 10 or so statements to the effect, but it was deemed overkill). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthut,
Why did you undo all the changes I made to Schnirelman density? I had corrected all the many errors in this article. For example, under Schnirelman's Theorem the assertion about Lagrange's theorem is false unless one includes 0 as a square, because otherwise 4 is the smallest number which cam be represented and the density would be 0! Most of the theorems quoted are also false unless at least one the sets contains 0. Since the N for the natural numbers is ambiguous (some people include 0, others do not) it is important to spell it out. The use of the symbol \oplus is inconsistent with the useage in the Wikipedia definition of set addition. There are many other similar problems in the version you have restored and my revisions were designed to remove them. I am not going to go back in and change them all back again, but as it stands this article does the disservice.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Which changes appeared to be incorrect? As for \oplus, it links the reader to the article on sumsets (where, incidentally, the symbol is not used). The definition there says that A+B is simply everything of the form a+b with a in A and b in B. I didn't see any definition in the Schnirelman density article. This article is almost exclusively about something in additive number theory and my experience of working in the area for more than 40 years is that that is the usual definition. If you have another definition in mind it needs to be spelled out in the article and justified. Another example of the kind of problems in this article. Look at the final formula in the section on Waring's problem. R_N^k(n) is an integer, but n^{N/k} is typically irrational. Moreover this is not even a good approximation. The actual volume of the region containing the lattice point is not n^{N/k} but is multiplied by a factor with is a ratio of gamma functions.
Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
hi bro... I understand if you have some concerns about my addition. I thought it was meaningful, and decent info. For the " Roman numerals" article. And well-meaning. The point is that it's accurate and good-faith. And according to Wikipedia policy, only actual vandalism or truly inaccurate things, (or totally unrelated things), should be summarily "reverted". Undoing or reverting, per WP recommendation and guidelines, should be done rarely.... And not for good faith accurate edits or additions. I hope we can maybe work something out, or maybe move it or modify my contrib here, instead of just totally removing it. Let me know what you think. And thanks for your attention to this. ResearchRave ( talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you explain why you reverted my edit to Bilderberg Group, which added content sourced to The Guardian, with the minor tag and no explanation? Are you aware of the guidelines on WP:MINOR? The explanation for reversion should be explained on the talk page - in this response please only explain the why you used the minor tag. II | ( t - c) 09:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have another edit or modification, I'd like to add, but I'd like your take (and permission) first, before I do. It would be under the "Origins" section of the article. It's with the sentence that's already there that says: "it was later identified as the letter D, perhaps as an abbreviation of demi-mille "half-thousand";". What I'd like to elaborate it with (also from Asimov's "Asimov On Numbers" book) is "an alternative symbol for "thousand" looks like this (I), and half of a thousand or "five hundred" is the right half of the symbol, or I), and this may have been converted into D." How's that? To make it a bit clearer what was meant by what's already there in the article "perhaps as an abbreviate of demi-mille". Just a little bit of an elaboration or clarity, with it. I hope it's ok...let me know. Thanks. ResearchRave ( talk) 21:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I have added a justification for the changes I tried to make to the Schnirelman density article. I would be grateful for your feedback. Hopefully we can end up with a better article.
Best Wishes, Bob Vaughan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvaughan2000 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Reference to the screenplay dialogue by online or other search will be capable of verifying the fact for you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reingelt ( talk • contribs)
You have a new message here. –– 虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ( talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Third party reliable source
are you kidding me? go to his website, truthjihad.com and it says his blog is dot blogspot. please stop your vandalism -- 75.198.78.182 ( talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"lambda^4 = 1" is the equation that corresponds to the polynomial expression "lambda^4-1", that is essentially the characteristic polynomial when neglecting multiplicity of eigenvalues, especially multiplicity zero, of the matrix of the discrete fourier transform. Why not link accordingly? HenningThielemann ( talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
On ANI you commented "He has shown he is unable or unwilling to adjust his bots to follow consensus, guidelines, and policy. " I would be interested to know why you think this bearing in mind:
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Arthur,
Its not my trademark. I don't think any company's trademarks should be used - they are a form of advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldnanoparticles ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There are many millions of people around the world who are very much interested in the movement to end the practice of torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Not again!!! Arthur Rubin, who the hell are you? Again, you've deleted something that was true and sourced. I'd deleted a statement that was completely unsupported: maybe it is the case that Press For Truth made its first TV appearance in 2007, but in this case support it, source it, reference it, for heaven's sake!!! What you deleted was the well-established, well-supported fact that Press For Truth made its TV debut in the US, in Colorado in 2009! Why would you delete my supported fact to revert back to some dubious statement? It doesn't make sense at all!!! Are you my enemy or what? What do you want from me???????????-- Little sawyer ( talk) 11:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain I don't understand the feedback you left here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15#Category:Redirects_from_domain_name. If possible, please elaborate on what you mean. Also--in much more important news--I hope your better half has a swift and thorough recovery. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Arthur Rubin. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sustainable Human Development, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you've been removing/reverting edits that cite a New York Times article. [24] However it seems as if you didn't look at the second page of that article which contains some of the assertions that the anon editor is citing. Could you double check your work? Will Beback talk 07:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
99.184.231.13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was just blocked by user:Slakr, has in my estimation been unfairly treated as a vandal. I have evaluated the sum of their edits which were systematically reverted by you, and I have found it necessary to reaffirm all edits done by the IP user as reasoned and appropriate, and as a consequence thereof I have reverted all undoings back to the state following IP user's edits. I encourage you to make a renewed venture into this matter. __ meco ( talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Mbz just broke the interaction ban. Please block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you removed, but then reverted the removal of a citation. I posted at the talk page to anyone, but as you decided it did belong, wanted to make sure you saw my question.-- SPhilbrick T 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (I see you are reasonably active lately, so I hope this means your wife is recovering nicely from her surgery.)
Best wishes for your wife's recovery from her surgery. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment for this change: we already have reliable sources linking the Koch brothers to the Tea Party movement. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 06:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of the policy regarding inline math tags; I won't use them in the future. However, I believe my change was still an improvement over the entirely broken state of that equation previously. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 18:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope your wife is doing better. I opened a discussion on the talk page for this article about the status of all the POV, etc. tags on it. Perhaps you can contribute some background to the discussion. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you for the prompt reply. I noticed that I had been distracted before completing my comments and posted an incomplete version. I have since updated it so it makes more sense. Cheers, Veriss ( talk) 16:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope all is well in your RL and you are able to find some time to participate in the discussion about all the tags on this article. Thanks, Veriss ( talk) 17:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The name in the navigational template should be the same as in the main article, if you disagree with the article's name, propose it for move. If you think the topic is not notable, propose the main article for deletion (I doubt it will be deleted since there are multiple sources and it has about 5 times more text than the article about sedenions). I hope you will not do any destructive edits any more.-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And it seems that you actions completely insane in this case. I suggest you think about it once more. Tessarines are completely analogous to quaternions, the only difference is that in quaternions i^2=j^2=k^2=-1, while in tessarines i^2=k^2=-1 but j^2=+1. That's the difference. Both are examples of hypercomplex numbers. Tessarines are commutative unlike quaternions. If you think quaternions should be there, there s no reason why this system should not.-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 02:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) And note that they already had been there. This is your own revision with tessarines: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Number_systems&oldid=332911297 So do you remove them now just out of combat spirit?-- 178.140.84.25 ( talk) 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am a foreigner and a simple reader of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your job. Frankly say, Editing article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim, is in a wrong way, by colluding of some editors and admins there. Their IDs are: Therexbanner, Gladsmile, Narking, Christopher Connor, RobertMfromLI, NickCT, Beetstra, 7. These Users are trying by reverting correct edits of the article, and doing a sort of anagram and "misusing" information in sources, show Mr. Andre Geim (winner of 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics) is not a Jewish and he has another ethnic. They seem like pure (but a bit hidden)vandalism. All correct RS sources, like:
- http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1,
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/,
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml
- http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf
- http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html
- http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/
- http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/
- …
clearly show that Mr. Andre Geim is a Jewish (he repeatedly mentioned about his Jewishness, [subject of self-identification]) in ethnical point of view and his family was originated from Germany(he also several times mentioned that his family are German [origin]). Nowadays German is a general word, which could means: Citizenship, Nationality, Origin, residentship, and so on. When Geim is taking about German being of his family, clearly and logically he talks about their origin before emigration to Russia. There is the same situation about Richard Feynman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman. By the way in a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, (that several times misused by above Users) Geim also said a story concerning Jewishness (clearly in religious point of view) of his grandmother, that of course it doesn’t mean that only his grandmother was a Jewish. Now in article as I checked the history of the article, above Users by reverting the correct edits there, try to present and show by their wrong way Mr. Geim an “ethnic” German person. The point is that in any RS sources, Geim hasn’t say that he has such ethnic, and he never used word “ethnic” there. Andre Geim won the Nobel Prize in the beginning of October; unfortunately, right after his winning until now, above Users kept the text of the article in a wrong position. In any case, if you have time, please check this Users carefully. By the way USER:Gladsmile, repeatedly reverted and undid the edits there, without any explanation(even wrong one). Personaly, seems like an extrimist Vandalism. Best Alexander468 ( talk) 16:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources are reliable, insofar we're discussing conspiracy theories, which precisely are NOT mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little sawyer ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur
Not sure why you are reverting my edits (137.44.8.85) to Ripchip Bot's edits on the 'environmental migrant' wiki entry. The changes I made were subtle but crucial. The 'environmental migrant' concept has no analytical integrity, and it is important for the introduction to the article to note this BEFORE any typologies are then provided.
Please in future leave it as it is. Nothing is certain and stable in terms of our knowledge of the relationship between 'environment' and 'migration', thus this must be flagged in the article at the start.
Regards
Tom Monteath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.8.85 ( talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Hope your wife is getting better faster! My daughter just got her jaw surgery 2 months ago too.
I attempted to submit a 2012 super volcano resource to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon and was disapproved due to biased paragraph. I took that into consideration and made edits to make sure the content did not have any bias in it. Please take a look:
Supervolcanoes were featured in the 2012 (film) capable of creating volcanic eruption force considerably greater than an ordinary volcano. [7] The ash that shoot out to the atmosphere can block light from the sun for 11 years, rendering global climate to drop up to 21 degrees, a phenomenon known as the nuclear winter. [7] Supervolcanoes are subsequently found in many areas of the world, one particularly in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming when Geologists discovered a 90 cm higher elevation in the terrain compared to 1923.
Is the above paragraph still biased? Can you point out the errors or penalties so I can fix them? Please let me know, as I try my best to provide good resources to Wikipedia.
Thanks, Ben FPMBen ( talk) 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FPMBen ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, you restored the disputed "grassroots" to the lead entirely without discussion. Given the nature of the article, I find this to be hasty and counterproductive. To make such changes, you must first gain consensus by going to the Talk page and making your case. I recommend that you do so. Until then, I will remove your premature, "bold" change. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 03:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, here is a link to the exact law being broken by McDonald's in Ohio, [26], please put back the article, Passionless ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, would you care to explain this? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see User talk:99.155.147.254 and their contributions. It must be nice to be loved. Drmies ( talk) 03:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I made this edit in reply to Alex (as reflected by the indent). Is that clear enough as it is? Or should we bullet our separate replies? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I think you might have reverted too far when you were removing something from the Reincarnation page. You reverted went past my edit in which I removed a really poorly written and poorly cited (in that one of the citations was a German YouTube video, and one didn't work) section claiming that some Christians believe in reincarnation. Was that your intent? I'm just checking because I don't want to start an edit war. If you want to keep that paragraph in, maybe you could clean up the grammar of it. Matt J User| Talk 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've already asked another editor that I respect a lot for input on this, but I'm going to express the same sentiments to you because I feel it's important.
I'm concerned about this section, not because because it violates policy, but rather because it's disruptive to the mission of the page. Creating a section for the debate of certain tags invites the discussions about the tags' objects to migrate away from their own distinct sections and into that one. I'm also distressed because the tags should remain in the article for as long as their objects are contested and there isn't consensus. A section in which the participants decide to remove a certain tag from the article can subvert the consensus processes in which other editors are engaged in the corresponding discussion sections.
It's already happening. Imagine how big the Tags section is likely to grow. It's destined to become a super-section with breakaway discussions going on parallel to the discussions taking place in their designated sections. I just think this is ridiculous and I don't think we should fuel it. - Digiphi ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, for this edit, you left a comment accusing me of violating WP:3RR. As I explained in some detail, this turns out not to be the case.
Now, I'm sure that both you and Malke were honest in your accusations, but simply misunderstood the rules or had some trouble counting up the edits. Regardless, I'm entirely willing to assume good faith.
While I am not demanding an apology, I would very much like you to formally retract the accusation. Will you do this for me? Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we please agree to keep discussion about the mediation formalities in the Talk page so that the Project page can be used for mediation? Interjecting unsigned objections like that is not productive, and to be frank, the objection was not relevant. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
— Spike Toronto 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, as someone who has run for office on the Libertarian ticket, you have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to the Tea Party Movement. I'm not saying this is what disqualifies you from having a valid opinion, but I do insist that you reveal your COI, just as JJB has. It's only fair.
And, to be fair, I want you to understand that if you don't reveal it, I will not hesitate to reveal it for you. As a courtesy, I will give you a day to add that COI notice on the mediation page. After that, I will take matters into my own hands. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty ( talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I put a ref to a Maths article (website in Germany) and you undid it. No problem with that but it is out of print and hard to find anywhere. Reason for undo? Createangelos ( talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
PS it is in vol 1 of Adv Stud Pure Maths published in Japan which was never reprinted for some reason and not available electronically outside Japan. Our library doesn't have it and I have never seen a published copy. Createangelos ( talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
PPS The link is to the website of a seminar of Viehweg, who passed away a few months ago. He worked with his wife Esnault on connecting these ideas with ideas of Deligne's thesis, which is available in IHES notes. As you probably know, lots of things get used informally such as the SGA seminar proceedings, most but not all available to interested scholars who are not at universities (and even some who are). Anyway the Viehweg site collects together five or 10 articles that are really basic in understanding the history and current state of things as of 2007 or so. The link was to one of them which is an actual reprint; not sure if Adv Stud Pure Math even exists anymore as a publisher or where the reprint came from...
What I am commenting on was that there was a link to a .pdf copy of the actual article and now that seems not to be there anymore (or at least it doesn't seem like anything happens when I click it on my computer, I'll try again now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 22:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no link now, I had made it so when clicking the name of the article it would go to the url http://www.uni-due.de/~mat903/sem/ws0708/C3f.pdf
I have my own copy of the article which I got from a scanned preprint in a file cabinet, but I was surprised that there is an orig. reprint on Viehweg's seminar page which he must have got somehow. Should I try again to put the link in? 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 22:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thx good edit. 92.14.230.191 ( talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Can you please explain this revert at WT:TITLE#Consistency because I cannot understand PMA's objection as stated in the edit summary of his original revert ("it "conflicts" under those conditions."... what conditions?), nor what he said in the comment at the talk page. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Ham tech person 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please go to this page and put in your opening statement. [29]. I put my statement on the talk page over there and didn't realize I should have put it on the project page. Just giving everybody a heads up. Thanks, Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Message Regarding Posting in The Mediation For the ongoing mediation on
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement, please respond only to posts made in previously completed rounds. After everyone has posted for the ongoing round, you may rebut those posts in a new round. Please do not delay in posting your responses. Thanks! |
This is a general notice. Ham tech person 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I've been looking at the BLP issue re. the King Bio court ruling documents. I asked a few questions on the talk page if you care to comment. Ocaasi ( talk) 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
can you provide a link for me over to the mediation for Tea party movement? Thanks. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might recall some of the past problems related to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pickup_artist_editing_by_201.116.29.243. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you have (and if not i would wonder why) lodged one about User:Untillu loose at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_talk:Untillu_loose Lihaas ( talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, Arthur! The article State National has been nominated for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_National
Yours, Famspear ( talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur you keep changing the information I am posting on the Oscillo page, saying it "contradicts" the other information. This is not true, by removing this you are effecting the nuetrality of the page, the information I have is referenced and factual. Please stop taking it down, or I will look further into wikipedia for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.78.14 ( talk) 19:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Since you placed a 3RR warning on my talk page, please identify the specific edits you believe are three reverts (undoing an editor's work). I suggest the result of PMA's edits and mine on that page today are an overall improvement largely consistent with BRD, though unfortunately accomplished with a certain amount of animosity, though no less than I feel from you.
By the way, your edit with summary "changing "consistency" back to "generally":
Take articles about books, for example. The title of each article about a book is, if possible, the title of that book. Does that make the title of Winnie-the-Pooh "similar" to Macbeth and Ivy Day in the Committee Room? How? Remember, in the context of the Consistency criterion "similar" means titles that "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". What is the same pattern that is followed in articles about books (and movies and plays and places for that matter)? For most, there is none, and, therefore, consistency is not generally preferred. That's fact, not opinion. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you have not read [ the decision] about the relatively recent (April 2010) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom → Elizabeth II move, which is quite relevant to this discussion, I suggest you do. Here is the core of the decision:
36 editors agree with DrKiernan's statement, while 14 oppose it. This supermajority is substantial enough to represent a consensus under most circumstances. However, since Wikipedia is not a democracy, consensus is not established by numbers alone, but also by strength of argument. In that respect also, the arguments of the editors proposing the move are better - not in the sense that I agree with them more, but in the sense that they are better supported by applicable Wikipedia policies and practices. The arguments advanced by DrKiernan (and endorsed by those agreeing with them) are logically consistent, arguing essentially that the "most common name" rule, a policy, and the neutral point of view rule, a core policy, are sufficient grounds to make an exception from the naming conventions guideline in this instance; and that the "of the United Kingdom" suffix serves no disambiguative purpose. The arguments opposed to this view are less convincing from the point of view of policy and practice, ...
Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. AJRG (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Except when they aren't; as here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- A concise title is preferred. You have to justify the need for disambiguation. AJRG (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- So is a consistent title: one that follows the same pattern as those of other similar articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- However, it may be necessary to trade off two or more of the criteria against one another; in such situations, article titles are determined by consensus, usually guided by the usage in reliable sources. The present title doesn't reflect usage in reliable sources. AJRG (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nor does it conform to either WP:NCCN or WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
* clarifying the last discussion was closed on 17 March not last month[2] while the person closing said no concensus the majority(63%) supported the move this was a change from the first discussion in 2005 where 92% opposed the move, clearly concensus has shifted significantly on the issue. An rfc was suggested when the issue was raised at ARBCOM during the last discussion and given that the no-concensus closurer is disputable this is the next step the dispute resolution..Gnangarra 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My edits to WP:TITLE are ultimately about having that policy better reflect what is actually happening in terms of title decision making at Wikipedia than the wording currently implies, to which you and PMA stubbornly cling. The arguments that you and PMA are making with regard to WP:TITLE wording are similar to the ones that PMA made at the Elizabeth II, and were shot down, as they increasingly are in similar discussions in all corners of Wikipedia (in case you haven't noticed). How long are you going to hang on to them? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; I like the self-deprecating comment about templating the regulars. But my last edit was intended as a rewrite of text I (and now Hesperian, as a third opinion) disagree with; it still needs to be rewritten - or if Born2Cycle can stand no opinion but his own, removed. It is not practice; it is not consensus; it is not policy; it should not be on a policy page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I'd like to give you the opportunity to correct an error you've made in this edit. You suggested that the full weight of WP:BLP protects the Tea Party movement, but that turns out not to be the case. Given that it's a large group, the policy is barely even relevant. Please read for yourself, and then correct your error. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
While you're likely in the right here, this edit-war's has been going on since August and shows no sign of slowing. I don't even care one way or the other, so I'd just as soon not involve myself any further. Half Shadow 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not him, I simple didnt understand you at the first time. Thanks for clarifying. The puffery and hype is recognised in the sence that its an euphism. It is as natural as natural makeup that got more chemicals then chernobyl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaskarlson11 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that you are at 3RR on the Koch article. Best, Arjuna ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove the reference to the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in the 2017 article? Aanother ignorant American douchebag. Don't do it again. There's reference to a political event on Hong Kong that you left up so I know this sort of event is perfectly acceptable to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.27.67 ( talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
3 (number). Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the
three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the
talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains
consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Thoroughgoodness (
talk)
10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, it seems our mediator has gone inactive, so I've posted the edit suggestion by Nillagoon on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well have everybody !vote since it really should be a larger consensus. Malke 2010 ( talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A quick search of the Ofcom reference for "polemic" finds seven matches, including "the programme was clearly polemical in nature" and "Although this programme was intentionally designed as a polemic", to take a couple of examples. I'm not entirely sure therefore what led you to the conclusion that "polemical" was not supported by the source. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In a recent edit comment, you stated that "FreedomWorks' association with the movement has no source, reliable or not". Even if you knew absolutely nothing about the issue and had only enough intelligence to google "FreedomWorks Tea Party", you would have immediately found http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/, which lists itself as Tea Party HQ. I am deeply concerned that this is part of a pattern of bold but trivially refutable claims. Please be more careful in the future; your reputation is on the line. Dylan Flaherty 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I see you reverted my reversion of QuackGuru's edits without a reason. I provided my objections in the edit comment as well as on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, we should be in the 'discuss' phase, not the 'revert again' phase. Would you revert back while this is hashed out on talk? Being as this is a controversial article, that seems to be the protocol. Ocaasi ( talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
My undo was somewhat accidental. I thought I was removing that portion from the article for the reasons you mentioned. I probably shouldn't edit when tired. Sorry for the inconvenience. 92.76.140.144 ( talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the talk page of 4th millennium BC, where I explain myself. LutherVinci ( talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Rubin, you appear to be edit-warring on David H. Koch. This includes a pattern of repeatedly reverting to a version that is inconsistent with our sources, refusing to participate meaningfully in discussion, and generally tendentious editing. As an administrator, I would imagine that you would hold yourself to at least as high a standard as the rest of us are held, but I have been repeatedly disappointed by your the example you set for others. I'm going to simply ask you to revert yourself, without going into detail about the alternatives, as you should already be quite familiar with them. Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
this seems rather inappropriate... -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
How would you summarize the statement? Presumably full quotation would be disproportionately lengthy. Was pretty sure that's what it says. Take it you are in agreement that something about the CoA's opinion should be included here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As I say, how would you summarize? This is what it says, yet as it currently stands the page shows not in citation and I have a 3RR warning. Who is qualified arbitrator? (by the way, are you a qualified accountant and accustomed to reading such documents?) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 08:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I read your comment in the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_calculus#Proposed_.22Identities.22_section
So, you think the following chain rule for matrix calculus is wrong?
I'm curious about whether the matrix calculus has the similar chain rule. can you talk about this more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.120.37.236 ( talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Arthur Rubin, I see that you have thought fit to remove the board of directors from the article on Brighterion, although you do not provide any explanation as to why. I understand that Wikipedia works by consensus and would suggest that in future you first post an entry on the Discussion page. Perhaps you could entitle it 'are the directors of relevance to a company', or something like that. With reference to another similar revert I have noticed to an article on Steffani's Niobe, Regina di Tebe perhaps you could start a discussion entitled 'is the librettist of relevance in baroque opera', or again something similar. Don't know whether you would like to revert your reverts [sic? not quite sure of the appropriate terminology] prior to consensus being reached on these matters. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, I see you have now also reverted my edit to hypocrisy. Please can I again refer you to the idea that Wikipedia works by consensus. If you would like to first post an entry on the Discussion page entitled 'are ways in which hypocrisy may be resisted of relevance to an article on hypocrisy', or something similar, then that would be great. In the meantime I would again invite you to revert your reverts [sic?] prior to consensus being reached. Perhaps you could start with my edit to Niobe, Regina di Tebe - I see you have yet to start a discussion as to whether the librettist is of relevance in baroque opera. I understand from a number of the entries on your talk page that you have a recidivist predilection for edit wars and unexplained rollbacks. I also understand that your time, like mine, is limited, so why don't we spend it on improving articles rather than reverting attempted improvements and reverting reverts that are either unexplained or have been made without prior attempt to reach consensus via the discussion page. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax ( talk) 11:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Instead of wasting my time and yours, please discuss with me your basis for reverting my work. I have made different additions to the Alex Jones (radio host) article. If you revert any more changes I make without discussing the issue with me first, I will consider your changes vandalism. 72.240.82.155 ( talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)