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 2009 | Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Mhiji
01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As an administrator, perhaps you can explain to me why you can or should override the support by the Relativity Taskforce for United States gravity control propulsion research. I don't see you listed as a member. Do they give their support to random pages outside of the category of Relativity? What is their purpose if their endorsement is useless? I'm honestly confused and I ask in good faith. Thank you. xod ( talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus on one of the Talk Pages (2008 or 2009) that state leaders be included (unless there are strong arguments not to). I haven't got time to find exactly where, will check after work. It should probably be added to WP:RY. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur!
I made a page for Mathematics Made Difficult, a classic text in my opinion, but it was proposed for deletion as "not notable enough". If you also believe this is worth a reference, could you lend your support on the talk page for the article, or add more to the article itself? Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I added today the number 14745 with the comment: 7th number with more than 1 digit that can be written from base 2 to base 18 using only the digits 0 to 9. [1] You replied: "seems a non-notable property (the end of the base list is arbitrary; does it do so in base 19? base 20?"
Well, to avoid an edit war.. I would like to answer you: - no, it stops at base 18, at base 19, it starts using letters. And adds some precision: The original idea was to find out if some numbers could be written using only digits 0 to 9, in as many consecutive bases as possible. From base 2 to base 21, or above there is no number above 9. From base 2 to base 20, there is only number above 9: 20 From base 2 to base 19, there are only 2 numbers above 9: 19 and 20. From base 2 to base 18, there are only 10 numbers above 9: 18, 19, 20, 1027, 1028, 1029, 14745, 9020076688681, 9439828025162228377 and 9439829801208141318 From base 2 to base 17 and below, there is an infinite number of such numbers.
So why bases 2 to 18? simply because for those bases, there is a finite, yet interesting number that matches the definition.
Note that a lot of numbers are listed as just "prime number" which is a very common characteristic. This characteristic of numbers, to me, is much more interesting than whether a number is prime or not, mostly because for a specific set of digits, one can find a series of bases for which the number of numbers matching that characteristic is as large as possible while staying finite.
Besides, a lot of numbers are not listed having any particular property, while I'm sure a lot of them have some unlisted property.
I request that you restore the entry at your convenience. Edit it, if you like, with some of the information given above.
Thanks in advance. Dhrm77.
I don't disagree that some of the pieces of information may seem somewhat arbitrary, but so are a lot of other information given on wikipedia. Similar series of numbers exist for: - digits 0-1 in bases 2 to 5 - digits 0-2 in bases 2 to 7 - digits 0-3 in bases 2 to 9 - digits 0-4 in bases 2 to 10 - digits 0-5 in bases 2 to 12 - digits 0-6 in bases 2 to 14 - digits 0-7 in bases 2 to 15 - digits 0-8 in bases 2 to 17 - digits 0-9 in bases 2 to 18 (listed above) - digits 0-A in bases 2 to 20 - digits 0-B in bases 2 to 21 - digits 0-C in bases 2 to 23 - digits 0-D in bases 2 to 24 - digits 0-E in bases 2 to 26 - digits 0-F in bases 2 to 27 etc... I consider it a notable property because it deals with the normal digits used in base 10, and because with those exact parameters, there are relatively few numbers that have that property. Those numbers being rare, they are notable. 14745 was the only number between 1029 and 9020076688681 with that property! The fact that YOU don't find this property notable doesn't mean someone else won't. I would suggest you don't make a judgment call based on your personal preferences. By your own standard, since I don't find "pronic numbers" of any interest, I should probably eliminate all mention of them in wikipedia... That would absurd, and contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, to bring knowledge to people. So I ask again, please revert your revert. This is only a small line in that range of numbers which is largely incomplete.
How can you say that "weather fronts", "low-pressure area", "high-pressure area", etc., are not related to Geography? Do you know that meteorology is only part of geography? -- 203.223.238.224 ( talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I've raised a concern at BLPN about the reverting. [1] SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have commented at Talk:Polytope on your reversion of another editor's citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Like me, you stepped in to revert an IP-hopping editor's repeated edits at Ahmad Zahir, as his version had not achieved any support on the talk page (nor did it seem likely to gather any support, the way he was going). Unfortunately, following your page protection request, it looks like the page is now fully protected with the IP-hopping editor's version intact. AtticusX ( talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that any film's World Premiere is a notable event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMercury39 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The honorable mention cite seemed OK, so didn't understand the deletion rationale. If it's an SPA issue, do you mind if I add it instead? -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 07:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program&diff=408608376&oldid=408586763 Please explain why my addition was removed. Also, the way you added at the end of those two movies the new text about Jessy's TV show, make it read as if his show is also fictionalized which it is clearly not. - the least you could have done was create a new sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.14.140 ( talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. as this is my first edit on wikipedia, ill go ahead and work on it, and submit a new one which i hope you will let fly. thanks for your time. for the record: I hope this is not a result of your opinion here regarding the content of the show. that would disappoint me! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LorienN (
talk •
contribs)
22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
see.. your opinions are coming out, which i think are irrelevant. this is not Facebook, but an online encyclopedia. Your edits can only be legit if they are stripped of any opinion. It makes no difference at all what you think of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series. I really do hope your further edits to my words here will not be influenced by your opinion. I think that will simply put shame on the entire existence and meaning of this grand website and source. I am still working on it, and have been reading here about the rules - doing my best to give you no reason to edit my words and be over picky with me, but rather sit back and respect their addition to the already existing information about HAARP. You can be sure, I am going to do ALL i can to make sure my addition will be 100% perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
ok here is what i have come up with. please let me know if this can fly. if not, please let me know why. please be detailed in your comments. please note that I have used the every word for my addition directly from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_with_Jesse_Ventura - so there can be no copyright issues you mentioned.
"In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura (December 2, 2009), the former Navy UDT, and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, visits HAARP to uncover the truth behind rumors that it is being used as a weather modification weapon, an instrument for mind control, or both."
thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think you have stripped way too much out of it, but to be able to move on, how about this as a compromise:
will that work? i honestly see why not. the few words about his background are incredibly relevant here. there is nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I give up. thanks for proving my point Arthur Rubin. Your entire response here so very much fits your profile and background its actually sad. enjoy the power while it lasts. i hope you are happy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, concerning your edit in here, I think you should have a look at this page. However, your decision as an admin is fully respected. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What part of the text you reverted on Jan 19 2011 is original research? The text is incomplete in the sense that there are no citations yet, but everything stated in it is considered "common knowledge" among mathematicians. The only original thing in it is the wording. Lapasotka ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be more precise. I agree that sources need to be stated (which I was going to do), but now the reason for the removal seems to be NPOV-based. Here are the sentences which have a hint of POV:
I think these parts should be edited to find a consensus instead of wiping out the whole section.The geometric depiction of addition and multiplication and the axioms of real numbers are standard, but they need a reference. I believe the geometric proofs fall into the class of Routine calculations with respect to the original research. Is there something else you disagree with regarding NOR? Lapasotka ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change them and figure out about subarticles. This is the first MAJOR page I have touched, mostly on the grounds that it is quite useless for general audience being too snobbish without any Elementary description. (Real numbers is the unique complete archimedean ordered field. How about that?) Do you think the section itself should be there in some reduced form? Lapasotka ( talk) 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you should have added a splitting proposition instead of reverting the section on these grounds. Lapasotka ( talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As you are aware, the deletion of this category was undertaken in anticipation of the deletion of Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories. The result of that discussion was Rename. I request that you reverse your changes, and implement the outcome of the CFD discussion. JQ ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, it seems like you haven't been able to do anything truly productive with yourself since winning the Putnam, and 'm sorry to hear about your wife's state of health. Please discontinue with your biased policing of my contributions. The UUe Trust (and the MAGICampaign for that matter) is real and cited. If it happens again, you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Listen to what you're saying, "Even if real, you have provided no evidence of notability."... You're behaving as if you know the law, which you do not. I'm sure the IRS has familiarity with trust laws. For you to edit this page is a knock against your credibility. You also made changes that were sweeping on the 'computational mathematics' page. Having a TLD does not make an institution official or notable. The converse is true, too. Be smart, dude! Rajpaj ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You have external links, but somehow the link to the permaculture forums, which had been there for years (I think), was removed. This is the largest permaculture site on the internet. How is it that this link would be repeatedly removed? How is it that it was removed in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.143.161 ( talk) 02:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you say why you removed the section on the Hide/Seek controversy from the Smithsonian page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.90.176 ( talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi recommended I ask you for help. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you reacted with such an unexplained flurry of tags to Fish School Search. However, looking more closely I'm inclined to think it should perhaps be removed, at least for now. The authors claimed it was submitted to appear in the Swarm Intelligence Journal in 2010, but it hasn't appeared to date. Moreover, there are no citations sofar for the current publications. However, if this position changes, then I think the entry should be reinstated. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and don't quite understand why you removed my edits to the Capturing the Friedmans page. Can you please explain? Thanks. -- Cediwiki ( talk) 00:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this page should be speedily deleted for the reasons I mentioned. Anything you do to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. [2] -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "post–Kyoto Protocol" takes an en dash just as "post–World War II" does. Please read WP:ENDASH. — kwami ( talk) 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems you have added a message to my page regarding an edit war. I am putting up useful sources re: Amway's business models and there seems to be a cartel of Amway staff taking them down. You can't argue with the truth of the matter. Amway IS a Ponzi scheme. Dr Asha Joliet ( talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Please consider reverting edits today by an anonymous user to the article Income tax in the United States. Capitalization of the word "Federal" was in accordance with usage in 26 USC. Change to section heading makes part of the heading redundant with the article title. Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Your 3RR warning is unfounded, as it is you who have made three reversions now of the same material. I find your template message on my talk page to be offensive and unnecessary and I request that you withdraw it. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly instead of hiding behind template messages. As I have stated, I find your changes to be incorrect for the reasons stated in my edit summaries. If you're going to reply here, notify me by placing the {{ talkback}} template on my talkpage; otherwise, pleas reply on my talk page. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You might find the Binary Mole (No = 279) interesting as you commented in 2008 that a power of 2 seemed appropriate in the case of Avogadro's number/constant. I tried to put a reference to the Binary Mole on the Avogadro's Constant article page, but it was deleted by Materialscientist who wrote "Undid revision 412257292 by SciMann (WP:OR - needs much better referencing, formatting and placement in the article". This is/was not original research or publishing of the issue, this proposed definition of the mole is not experimentally verifiable, the only places that it exists (mine or references to mine) were given, and the formating already in the Avogadro's Constant article page was used. My placement at the end of the introductory was obviously a problem for this person as it clearly pointed to an alternate view that differed from that currently accepted. I was subsequently told that my insert violated the self-citing rule. I have added it for the moment to the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avogadro_constant. SciMann ( talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC) User:SciMann (talk)
Just wanted to understand why you reverted the external link added to Humanitarian Logistics? Specifically, the HLA professional association that offers certification and training. Perhaps this would better be presented by adding a Section on Education and Training to the article, then include the External Reference?
Forgive me as I am new here and still learning the rules. Thanks in advance for your reply. Martin.A.Bush ( talk) 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A friend of mine User:Heinleinscat was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry he did not commit. (He lives at a college where he edits from a computer lab. What's the recourse there? BCLH ( talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Thanks for your interest in adequal. I thought we try in general to avoid redirects. What is the reason for your edits? Tkuvho ( talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hum... [3]...see the associated talkpage please.-- MONGO 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Particle accelerator mishap may be unsourced but I've seen concerns in the newspaper regarding micro black holes and strangelets voiced by serious people about the Large Hadron Collider. Unless the content is obviously hair brained, which this one is not, serious editors have the right to require an edit summary and/or consensus for removal of content by anons. I consider myself a responsible editor when checking my watchlist and rc. I double check, go back in the article history before and after my revert and sometimes catch and revert my own mistakes, etc etc. I don't use automatic tools other than rollback. I take it slow. Each anon edit is a case by case basis judgement call. I've seen experienced editors, including admins incorrectly restoring content that was removed without explanation by anons just because all they could see in Huggle is: content remove without summary = vandalism = revert. I'm more careful than that. Unless the content is obvious nonsense I may, at my discretion require that an edit summary be provided for removal of content. Slight Smile 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You have deleted my contribution without explanation. As a new contributor, I would be grateful for some hints to help improve my offerings. Paul Hield ( talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are quite right that it would no doubt be easy to find many text books outlining the argument deployed that taxation lowers wages and profits, but as I am trying to point out, the argument is incomplete because it only goes as far as removing money from an economy and does not take into account the most likely situation where the same money is spent again by government in which case the same argument (with which you take no issue) would have opposite consequences. The argument running in either direction is a matter of applying very simple logic to a set of idealised assumptions, not a matter of substantiated empirical research. The true consequences of taxation are much more subtle and difficult to discern and would indeed merit a whole host of references to sources. Therefore I believe that your removal of my contribution should be reversed, I shall do so forthwith.
Arthur, I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.
Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield ( talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have created the article Thomas W. Hungerford. I will be adding material to it in the coming weeks, especially notability references. You may restore the links to this article if you wish.-- Foobarnix ( talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Is Untalker Hewitt, do you think, or one of his students, i.e. one of the people not allowed to edit the article per ArbCom? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment on Talk:Amazon Rainforest, please. 99.56.121.41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.83.114 ( talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. What we have there is an editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia but is a professional and is trying to be cooperative -- see User talk:Camburns. So far his experience of Wikipedia has been very discouraging, unfortunately. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have encountered a publication being sold for $65 that contains content apparently all from Wikipedia. This sort of this tends to discourage editors like me. See User talk:Oldtaxguy#Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit. Can we do anything? Oldtaxguy ( talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One person is not a consensus, bright boy. It makes no sense to cram an theoretically infinitely large list into a slightly less theoretically infinite list. If you wish to get a third opinion, go do so, but try not to unnecessarily remove content from Wikipedia. There are several entries on the list of irrational numbers that are not in the list of numbers. Please do not destroy this information so recklessly. Hope you have a nice day! LutherVinci ( talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, I've lost track of the plot. Is this user trolling or is there a language barrier? Perhaps a little bit of both? Semi-protection might help, no? Viriditas ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice that you're well on your way to an edit war regarding whether "United States" should be linkified on the article I mention above. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policy at Wikipedia:Linking#What generally should not be linked. -- AdamRoach ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems you have reverted my edit on Low-carbon economy ( discussion). Revision as of 12:34, 27 February 2011
The article did not contain any reference of decarbonisation, which can be a long-term process of a low carbon economy to a non-carbon economy or to a clean technology economy.
Please explain why you removed: "A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation" ?
— RW Marloe ( talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:ITCZ ? 166.137.142.40 ( talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Has suddenly appeared - I doubt he is a "new user" (using "again" in an edit summary!) on the Charles Koch article. Collect ( talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this edit of yours I would like to inform you about WP:FOOTERS. With your edit you move interwikis away from other interwikis and above categories. The correct order is Defaultsort -> Categories -> Stub templates -> Interlanguage links. If you have questions on th manual of style please contact me. Wikipedia makes an effort to have interwikis (including those marked with Fa which means "featured article") together in order to be easily detected by interwiki bots and updated regulatory. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, we've had some discussions (and occasional disagreements) over neutrality of some content. My apologies if you're busy--if the "involuntary vacation" tag still holds, feel free to pass the football to someone else. I've recently come across several posts and edits that, in my opinion, are heavily promotional--either advertising or propaganda--and need not merely a correction, but some kind of an independent guiding hand to temper the reaction of the most frequent posters. One is the ACTA page where J.V. Martin has been largely removing all information critical of the organization, whether supported or not. Martin appears to be a person vested in the organization (irrespectively of his name similarity to the organization's founder, J.L. Martin) and has added several rounds of "corrections" based entirely on organization's promotional literature. I don't want to engage in edit war with him because 1) I don't believe it is productive and 2) I've observed the organization in action, including interactions between ACTA, NAS and the Federalist Society, first-hand and thus might be tainted by "original research". Note, in particular, that Stephen Balch, who is on the board of ACTA, is the founder and long-term president of the NAS. Conversely, J.L. Martin used to be a frequent presenter and panelist at NAS meetings. Both organizations have clear ideological bias that they try to hide with self-promotional platitudes. ACTA publications have been routinely cited for lack of methodological cohesion or even complete failure of methodology--e.g., Defending Civilization was little more than a cherry-picked collection of isolated, decontextualized quotations, set in an inflammatory framework.
My second observation involved the article on Grimsby Traditional Smoked Fish and several other articles where its author added a paragraph or two linking back to GTSF. The article reads like barely edited promotional brochure. It's not even a question of bias--it's a desire to sell the product. The only "external references" are to members of the Grimsby coop and the sole "news" article might have been placed advertisement as well (it's not entirely clear). I added some corrections in "Smoked Fish", followed by further corrections by others, but the main source remains largely untouched.
Again, my apologies if I am disrupting your regular activities. I hope your wife is better and you have time to help on this.
Please feel free to remove this post if you find it unhelpful. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your wife's surgery. I hope she's better. I actually am new to this and promise to cite every comment I make about this family. I'm still trying to figure out how to add footnotes. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrantsalot ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You have some discussion at err... an article called " SATAN RITUAL ABUSE" (strange title huh?) 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, would you please help me and in so doing help clarify the article. The latest edit which I added was simply to clarify that the tax taken was sum of the losses suffered by each part of the economy impacted by the tax. This is the point made in the second paragraph where the example of how a $0.50 tax is shared between the supplier and the buyer, the buyer pays an extra $0.20 and the seller loses $0.30, the sum being equal to the $0.50 tax imposed.
To allow the example but delete my edit, where I state that the sum of the losses is equal to the tax taken, appears to be inconsistent as, so far as I can tell, they make the same point.
I think your objection to my edit is that taxation causes greater loss in the economy than simply the sum of the losses as a direct result of the tax. I'm just guessing here so I may be quite wrong and be missing some other fundamental point.
Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield ( talk) 06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur -- I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so here are two more references, with video, of David Koch's organization Americans For Prosperity explaining to Koch himself how they've been organizing the Tea Party movement:
DeMelle, Brandon (October 13, 2010). "Koch brothers' Tea Party connections confirmed". Grist. Retrieved March 10, 2011.
Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 13, 2010). "Tea Party movement: Billionaire Koch brothers who helped it grow". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2011.
(here's another ref)
I hope you'll agree that's sufficient to restore my edit, with those refs. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In an interview, Robert Eastlund, the son of the HAARP technology inventor Bernard Eastland said his father intended HAARP to be used as a defense technology and to control weather in arrid places like Ethiopia to ensure a healthy environment. exact link of time mark 24:29 interview segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: When you get a chance, can you please respond to the following post? [4] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The same day I find two articles on this 2011 End Times thing, I find someone has created Alternative archaeology and tried to redirect Pseudoarchaeology to it. Dougweller ( talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"
Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker, aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.
Furthermore, the second paragraph was sourced through the waybackmachine, it was not a blog entry.
Therefore, i'm undoing your deletion. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page. 200.67.138.7 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) edit: sorry, it looked like i was logged in but clearly i wasn't. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived, and the article still states "unreliable sources". I modified the article to reflect that on one link the journalist himself is stating that he was the fake engineer. I just wondered if the "unrealiable source" has to stay there indefinetly, if i need to bring other sources claiming the expertise of Attivissimo in the hoax debunking field, or what needs to be done... thanks in advance.
p.s.
hope everything's fine with your wife, and good luck!
Idonthavetimeforthiscarp
16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I’ll try Due to the very nature of conspiracy theories movements, though, the vast majority of stuff I have is from blogs or websites, since the conspiracy world has found a fertile terrain in the internet. No debates, no proof needed, etc. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem to be a major watcher/whitewasher of conservative articles, please explain this one:
The Koch name is all over that article, as founders, funders, board members, etc. Some of that applies to many of the other articles which were reverted. You admit to having a COI because of your own political POV, and maybe everyone does in their own ways, but it shouldn't cause you to remove information that is well documented. That's unwikipedian. Should we create a subcategory for the Koch family category that can include the numerous articles on subjects which the Koch family are heavily invested, control, or fund? Please provide a solution as a sign of good will. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, I wonder if you'd weigh in on a similar debate at SPLC where an editor claims that a source is reliable because it has been reported by another source which is reliable. ( previous & related thread). Though I'm still not convinced this argument wholly applies to the Koch Ind./Greenpeace context, it seems that another editor is making the same argument which you assumed I was making. Respectfully, - PrBeacon (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Within your response to my comment on Original Research at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics, you said "The problem is that an allowable rephrasing in most fields becomes OR in mathematics, as even a change in notation does not fall in the 'routine arithmetic calculation' exemption in Principles 11.". I have not been able to figure out to what you were referring when you said "Principles 11". Please explain it or give a link. Thank you. JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be having an edit war with an anonymous IP on this article. Stop reverting and discuss please. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at a post you made a few years ago here. I'm not sure I follow what you mean about the 'products' if you want to call them that, working out differently depending on whether you treat them as real numbers or as rationals. I'd appreciate your time at the talk page in question to help me hammer out your meaning before I begin to merge the articles. Thanks, Cliff ( talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is it really necessary? Since the claim passes WP:V and multiple reliable sources describe LP as third largest, I think this phrasing is unnecessary. Thoughts? -- GalupK ( talk) 09:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand your point. How about adding some latest sources? I've found some latest (2010-2011) sources:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
IPv6. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I tried to stop it by commenting on the talk page, but you did not stop reverting. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Shrenujparekh ( talk) i need genuine help..it seems that my facts/misc/info is misunderstood/interpreted in a wrong way i have written an article stating a new type of mean{releted to maths}(anti geomtric mean and anti-harmonic mean)
(don't hesitate to read plz)
who AM I? i am Shrenuj Parekh,india,mumbai.i am a small kid aged 17 years old. i love mathematics and aim to be a contributor(in terms of articles,innovations,inventions,formula's,etc.)in the field of Maths.
History of wiki contributed articles: i created an article on "anti geometric and anti harmonic mean"(a month back around) it was deleted reason(UNSOURCED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) SOURCE WAS MY BRAIN..............how could i ever link it with an external link?
i had gone a study tour in some town are(via college cause club).........so could not edit the page within 7 days and my article got deleted
a solution was sort by me.i wrote an article on my website relating to the same(aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com)....dated 0ct 16
. . . i decided to write the article again with an external link........... the twist in my story.........my blog has been shifted to (aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com(does not exist as of now)) TO (picturequizquestions.blogspot.com).for better traffic
WHAT DO I WANT?
my page is facing a chance of deletion.plz follow the link below to know more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_71#Anti-geometric_mean_and_anti-harmonic_mean_needs_rescuing
copyright issue{*don't tell this to anyone*} i am a 17 year old who likes to show off!!(just like any other teenage boy...) so in an attempt to impress peers i wrote"COPYRIGHT SHRENUJ 2010".........FOR MERE SHOW off and to impress friends...........i have no copyright,in short........
I re-reverted, because your edit made no sense to me: to me it seems obvious that the base-10 logarithm is exactly what is meant there. Please take a look, and if you're still convinced my edit was wrong, we can try to figure out why we disagree.
Thanks,
—
Ruakh
TALK
02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, I see you seem to have a bit of a problem with my edits or with me personally, as you seem to be following EVERY edit I make, even if legitimate and are referenced, such as the edit in 2052. There are dozens of articles which read similar to that of Georges Roux (Assyriologist), but I don't see you or anyone else persistently editing them or reverting edits which are referenced, so I can only assume that this problem is with me. I would appreciate feedback or thoughts, as any edits I make are referenced. — Preceding xRiamux — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRiamux ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Colony (U.S. season 2). Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus ( talk • contribs) 18:07, February 2, 2011
Regarding this edit, Dr. Joe Gallian, who runs the Univ. of Minnesota Duluth REU program maintains a webpage called "Putnam Fellows Career Path" ( http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) where he has updates on where past Putnam fellows are today (including their achievements and such). The database listed your "Professional Appointment" as "Financial adviser (2005)". I was assuming he obtained this information by contacting you directly, but I guess I was wrong. Based on your LinkedIn profile, I have updated your Wikipedia entry to include positions in industry which you've held in the past. I also included this list on Dr. Gallian's "Putnam Fellows Career Path" ( http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) Mozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you comment on the veracity of the claims made in the new entry about Jacob Barnett ? You are a mathematician and an ex-child prodigy so your input on this issue would carry a lot of weight.-- Mozart20d ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, why do you think/know those IP Users are the same person? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Might I ask why? 212.68.15.66 ( talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
When you get a chance, can you please respond to this? [5] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin, Would you be disturbed if I changed the title of the section Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles to Talk:Tetration#Merger proposal. Since that is where the merge is being discussed, I think it is worthwhile. Awaiting your answer, Cliff ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Could I send you a brief email about an admin-related topic which would benefit from discretion? My email is listed on the top of my talk page. Thanks, Ocaasi c 08:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I took the liberty of changing the typestyle in your !vote so your meaning was clear for those who speed read. Please look at my change and revert if you don’t concur. Greg L ( talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Maybe if you had taken a read of the last comment made by me, on the Talk:2010 article you would know that I stopped and apologised. Maybe if you saw the latest 2010 article history, you would know that I let Julia Gillard be removed. I did not abuse 3RR. You could have told me nicely that what I was doing was wrong, instead of making me look 'foolish'. I had the facts; they werent taken too well on the talk page. So I said I wouldn't continue. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." -- I may be a little thick headed for a 14 year old, but when I know I am wrong, I'll apologise and admit it. With all due respect in this case I don't feel that I am in the wrong. If you notice, you'll see I performed 3 reverts, not 4. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss the relavent reverts made to Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 with 99.112.214.205 ( talk · contribs) rather than continuing the dispute over minor wording issues. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings Arthur,
Firstly, I would like to express my regret at the confrontational disagreements you and I have recently had over various mathematics pages. I decided to join Wikipedia, not for the purposes of seeking arguments, but to contribute to and improve this encyclopedia, and I am enthusiastic about doing so.
Having said that, your last message to me contained some material which I feel obliged to respond to. And since the editing itself has stopped, taking the matter here seemed more appropriate. In your last message to me you said,
As you well know, course notes are not considered a reliable source; and the reals form a topological group, so an → x is equivalent to an − x → 0, and the statement generalized becomes 1/n → 0, which seems simpler than x + 1/n → x. But that is trivia. I'm just pointing out that your latest change is a style change, rather than a substantive change.
First of all, I have to say that I resent your tone. Although I have lurked and read articles here for some time, I have only recently begun to edit, and so as a matter of fact I did not 'well know' anything about course notes with regard to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I was providing information in good faith, in order to persuade you, through rational argument, of something which you seemed to be denying. Furthermore, the material I provided did contain a proof, and I am sure that you have the mathematical ability to evaluate it and judge its validity! Incidentally, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out where exactly course notes are mentioned on the page you linked to me. (I'm not saying they're not there, but it's a big page with a lot of information and I'd be grateful if you could thus be more specific.)
Finally, I must just point out that if my latest change is nothing more than a stylistic change, then so was yours when you changed what I had originally put in the first place, (in the process falsely accusing me of having made a serious error.) Telanian183 ( talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
But the material that I added to the page was correct, so what's your point? Telanian183 ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not kidding :). I can't access the source, but others seem to agree: [6] and [7], for what they're worth. That's one way to screw up your needle. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Upon second glance, I think you removed the dab for vinyl and left the chocolate part. I'm confused. Anyway, I undid it and added refs to support the chocolate record. (This has been a very strange 2 minutes.) Revert me if I am wrong. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had a reason to mark this [8] as a minor edit. Removing content is described as an example of when not to mark an edit as minor. Thanks. Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
GFHandel . 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just dropping by to let you know I removed some of your tagging on Aboud El Zomor. In my assessment, the article was not eligible for CSD A7 (even the old version) because a claim that he was a participant in the successful assassination of a head of state indicates why the subject is important, and therefor the article survives criteria A7. I mostly agree with the remaining tags you placed, however I have now removed them after improving the article. Feel free to bring the article to AfD if you still think it needs to be deleted after the changes. Monty 845 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Whittemore Peterson Institute . Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Byanose ( talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I was going to create an artical for every decade of the 22nd Century, to me it seemed silly to stop at the 2110's as every century before it goes from begining to end, I agree to go into the 23rd Century would be rediculous, but why stop 1/5 of the way through, what if I combined decades such as 2140s/2150s 2160s/2170s 2180s/2190s, would that be acceptable, please give me an answer.
- user talk:Phoenix500 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Now I have reverted the 2120s artical back into existeence, before you delete my contributions, please consult with me and maybe we can compromise. User:Phoenix500 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC).
I will however assure you that i will not bring back the 2130s artical until our agreement has been reached, we will not editwar.- (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (PDT)
Hey Arthur Rubin,
I'm new to wikipedia, so bear with me. Today you undid an earlier edit of mine. In the comments section you said that it "introduces a statement not supported by the sources." But my edit was simple a stylistic one. The original sentence read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund some organizations within the American Tea Party movement." I changed it to read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund the American Tea Party movement." Any help or guidance you can give me to understand the problem will be much appreciated. Thanks. Churchillreader ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I now have an idea of what I can and can not create, I am new at this, I have improved some articals, and apparently screwed up on most of them, that is why I had a friend of mine delete some of my articals, but a few I am willing to try to fix, out of all my articals I feel these decade articals I am having the most success with, as I am researching off this website as well as on, I will go no further than the 2190s, all I request is give me the chance to reach my goal first before you revert them. After these few decades of the future I will move to the past, as our website offers only as far back as the 1690s BC, I will aim for 2490s BC but this will take several months, let these few future decades be my test before I waste my time on 1000 years that will be deleted no matter what.
user talk:Phoenix500 18:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed up to the 2190s, alll years 2120-2199 have been redirected to their proper decade, I understand your concern about redoing the template to aquire remaining decades, if you can contact someone to do just that, the rest of the work will already be done for them, you just give mt the heads up when I can start going back in time before the 1690s BC, at my user talk page Phoenix500 - 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC).
Hi there. You nominated this article for deletion back in 2008. The discussion ended in 'no consensus', but I agree with you that the subject is non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
62 (number). Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley Hudson ( talk • contribs) 14:36, April 27, 2011
Hi, could you please explain to me what the anchor you added to this article does and why you put it in? I read the template page, but, unfortunately, I don't get it. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
anchor|UK super-injunctions|UK superinjunction|UK super-injunction}}
allows
Injunction#UK super-injunctions,
Injunction#UK superinjunction, and
Injunction#UK super-injunction to link to the same place as
Injunction#UK superinjunctions. As there were already some redirects pointing to the hyphenated form, I thought it better to add the anchor than to modify the links. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Please reference your claims and assertions on the talk page when you make them. Your signal to noise level has been rather low, you simply make to many recollection errors, and statements that contradict the basic facts of the case. Do please check first if your recollections are correct - instead of blindly opposing V's comments, which is the impression that is left when your assertions turn out to be incorrect. I too find his general agressive attitude problematic as well - but i can't fault him for not backing up his statements with reliable sources. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
THE ARTİCLES ARMENİAN MOVİNG AND ARMENİAN ROOTS WROTE ON REAL FACTS AND EVENTS.AND THIS TEXT IS FROM THE FAMOUS SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan from Karabakh ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur,
Back from a long break, and it looks like as usual, shenanigans are occurring. Any ideas on how to get 99.X to become a useful member of the community? I would start by saying that they need to:
I think we collectively have no time for this brand of distraction, and either 99.X shapes up, or we need to find a way to get him/her to stop wasting everyone's time.
Anyway, I won't be on all that often, but at least you know that someone whose viewpoint on the issue at hand lies opposite yours is irritated as well, and hopes that it is possible solve the distraction without too much effort.
(Aside: to this, you are, in fact, a mathematician, which is quite different... though honestly I often wish I knew more applied math for numerical solutions.)
Awickert ( talk) 08:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur,
Please, you stated here [9] that " all references which claim mathematical value are by B, and note that it doesn't have mathematical value". I think I am missing something! About value, I am not an expert, but are you sure about the references who are by B. (you mean a single fellow, I guess) ?? did you verify the 29 references I collected here [10], and which were the most numerous for the pages I investigated ?? Thank you for correcting any mistake I could have done on this item. Rirunmot ( talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What is your opinion?? should you need more data?? Rirunmot ( talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dear Arthur,
As busy as you seem, your opinion will be a valuable one at [ [13]] thanks-- Rirunmot ( talk) 13:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope being a murder suspect isn't a ploy to bolster your intimidation points as an administrator. ;) 155.99.230.134 ( talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you contributed to page Fraction (mathematics), linked from page I edit: Whole number. I have made a reasonable article, with many references, but my edits are reverted and they say that my actions are vandalism!!!! Now they threat to block me. I don't know what to do!!!! This is sick. Max Longint ( talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Public opinion on climate change. 99.35.13.248 ( talk) 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
You removed an image I posted (cover of Canticle for Leibowitz) to the article on Science Fiction. I can understand the rationale behind it, I suppose - not fair use because the article is not about that novel - but what I don't understand is how the other two images in that section - covers of The Left Hand of Darkness and Neuromancer are in fact permitted to be there, since that rationale would seem to apply to them as well. I'd also be curious to hear why the in-text reference to Canticle was superfluous enough to be deleted; it seems like a fairly canonical novel for the subgenre. I'm relatively new to this, so any information you can offer would be helpful. Thanks! Sindinero ( talk) 03:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, you said at the Climategate page 'For conspiracies, I accept that the some sources support conspiracy theory, and few (if any) contradict it.' This is wrong.
1) If you look at V's sources [14] he has provided only one, Information World Review, that actually uses the loaded term, 'conspiracy theory'. All of his others use 'conspiracy' without a 'theory' straight after it, i.e. in the sense of 'allegations of a conspiracy'. I would then ask is an IT magazine, IWR, a reliable source in any case?
2) Even if it is, the fact that 'conspiracy theory' is largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning it is, therefore, a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and reliably sourced or otherwise, it must be attributed, per NPOV.
What am I missing here? Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don’t know if you remember the whole affair about the reliability of an English/Italian journalist regarding the article “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”
I was citing Paolo Attivissimo, an English/Italian journalist, as a source for investigations on this group, and there was a dispute on the reliability of said journalist.
You were asking for some source which could be compared to the Skeptical Inquirer, so here’s what I have:
He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688
Again, the Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:
http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html
(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )
He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:
http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1
And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1
He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)
He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo
He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/
So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. Thank you, and good travelling. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I recently asked Viritidas, Alex Harvey, and Pete Tillman to consider taking a fortnight off the CRU email controversy article, as tensions might have built up a bit too much recently. SBHB has also agreed to take two weeks off the article; I was wondering if you might do the same. Regards, NW ( Talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your latest tagging of "Nine independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings", I am once again at a complete loss trying to understand why you say this statement "failed verification" and is "disputed". As both an administrator and a mathematician, I assume you are familiar with WP:CALC. The source describes eight separate inquiries and the source itself is the ninth probe, this one by the Commerce Department Inspector General, which is covered in spades by secondary news sources. [15] How does 8 + 1 = 9 fail verification or represent a dispute? Is there a good reason you added these maintenance tags? Please remove them. Viriditas ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You have used the wrong warning on my talk page, clearly. 88.109.29.126 ( talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
see Reinhart and Rogoff (2008), Reinhart and Sbrancia (2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghileman ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This article lists the inflation tax, so it seems appropriate to also list the related financial repression tax. For a discussion of why financial repression constitutes a form of taxation please page 143 of Reinhart's and Rogoff's (2008) This Time is Different. Ghileman ( talk) 15:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've never got excited about the whole "barnstar" concept, but I just want to acknowledge your good work defending List of numbers amidst the recent editing chaos. Jowa fan ( talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
hi, I disagree with you removing my original photos from several pages. I think that they nit nay comply with the terms of use, but they provide an accurate view of the subjects. Thanks --The Educated 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Arthur,
Since you are an admin, I thought I would ask if you could protect a BLP from persistent vandalism. It is the Rick Santorum BLP, which is understandably under attack since he is a Republican presidential candidate. An outspoken political activist, Dan Savage mounted a campaign a while ago to coin a new crude definition for 'santorum.' IPs have persistently been trying to put that crude definition into the article through various means. I don't have a problem with established users arguing that the content should be in the article, but I do with the drive-by IPs. Thanks for your consideration. Drrll ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Any clue why the IP came to my page to whine about you? I've never edited that article before, at least, I don't think so, since it's not on my watchlist. Don't think I've run across the IP either. Should I kick your ass or something? Warn you? Do a dance? Bring you a cup of coffee? I'll challenge you to duel, how about that? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What's up with the reverts? Will Beback talk 08:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
[19]? Will Beback talk 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your revert, followed by a revert of the revert. It is fine by me to undo my edits if you disagree. I am fairly used to it lately :), I won't take it personally. Thenub314 ( talk) 02:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [23] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks -- Techala ( talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
I saw that your removed my section abouta blog about the ICD. I am aware that the section strictly speaking was not in line with Wikipedia policies so I won't argue that it should be undone. However I put it there because the article itself, which was started by someone at the ICD, is full of references to their own website, and because most of what is out there about the ICD likewise seems to refer back to themselves. The truth is, I only ever heard of them because of receiving some very efficient spam which targets university addresses and which is quite difficult to block. Googling them, it seems that spamming is in fact a very deliberate strategy that involves over 70 interns, and I'd like to unveil that. In any case, I get your point.
In a different vein, I think that the references section of that article could be improved, as it is not clear from the references exactly what they refer to: to their website, or to other sources. I'd like to change that, but since I did not start the article I want to be sure that I am not messing up someone else's work that has already been approved. Do you have any suggestions of what I might do? Best SkaraB 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you are a member of WikiProject Mathematics and you are the first one who commented on this deletion, could you please comment here, thank you. ■ MMXX talk 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, do you mind explaining to me in simple English how the world's wealth was able to increase so much over the past two centuries. Also, will the enormous wealth of today be maintained? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [24] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks -- Techala ( talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, you once again performed a tag team revert on Climatic Research Unit email controversy without acknowledging or responding to discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary, consisting of concur with Tillman. The quote is excessive; if you feel it's relevant, please summarize does not even touch upon the points raised in that discussion. Furthermore, how can you summarize a quote? Your edit summary (and rationale for reverting) is nonsensical. Please consider this the last warning and do not do this again. Use the talk page to discuss your edits, not the edit summary. So far, you have not responded to that discussion at all. Viriditas ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, please take a moment out of your busy day to count the number of reverts you've made to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy since January 1, 2011 and then compare it with the number I've made. I count somewhere on the order of 17 reverts from you. On the other hand, I've made a little over 10. Viriditas ( talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur - I just added a post to the existing AN/I thread that Viriditas started providing some diffs and asking for people to comment on his behavior. I figured I would let you know, since you also seem to have had some problematic contact with him. I know it would normally be more fitting as a WQA post but WQA asks you not to post if there's a thread elsewhere already dealing with the same issues. I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution processes in general, but am hoping that getting a few additional outside editors commenting will yield productive resolution. Since you have had prior contact with him, I'd appreciate it if you could chime in with your thoughts on the ANI thread. Kevin ( talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: User_talk:Tillman#June_2011: Arthur, as an administrator, you should know better than to restore the name of an editor to a talk page heading after that editor has objected to its placement per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA. If you aren't willing to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your role as an administrator, you may want to contact a steward. I can understand that you must feel tired and stressed from the demands and responsibilities, but your recent actions and comments have me concerned. In addition to restoring personal attacks, it troubles me to see you admit that you can't write from a NPOV. [25] Please make an effort to incorporate the policies and guidelines into your role as an administrator and uphold them, even if you don't believe them. Viriditas ( talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You originally unlinked neo- isolationist with a comment that "Mead's definition is clearly different than ours. The alterative is note that Mead is clearly wrong." Only after the link was restored by Will Beback did you add the {{ disputed}} template, specifically to the linked word. Under the principle that neo- is not without meaning, and noting that the isolationism article has no discussion of either neo-isolationism or the United States, I then repointed the link to the neo-isolationist section of the grand strategy article. This section has a definition which seems to correspond exactly to the description of Paul's position, without any mention of abandoning or curtailing international trade. Since this seemed to remove the original reason for adding the tag at that location, I'm hard pressed to find a reason "the tag shouldn't have been removed". Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I'm currently involved in what is unfortunately looking more and more like an edit war with an IP editor on the Shinji Ikari article. The problem is over the inclusion of Category, specifically Category:Fictional bisexuals. Before I removed the Category, I did some research and looked at both when it was added and if it had been discussed on the talk page. From what I can see, there was no consensus to add the Category and that there are no sources provided to back it up. Since this is quickly descending into edit warring(Or may already have), I wanted some advice as to what to do next. Normally I would try to talk to the user, but since it's an IP that doesn't have any history beyond these edits and is trying to use livejournal and youtube as reliable sources, I don't know how to try to talk to them. Should I request mediation? The article is quite small and I don't see a lot of edit activity. If you could give me some advice as to not make this worse, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. -- Tarage ( talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have had your hands full with IP jumper 99. This person has used no fewer than a dozen different IP's that I have noticed. Arzel ( talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Why should you be looking for work? I know plenty of pharmaceutical companies that would pay you for the work you are doing on the Burzynski page of Wikipedia.
Have you seen the Burzynski movie? Are you able to watch it? it's currently free to watch on www.burzynskimovie.com until the 20th June.
It's hard not knowing all the rules around editing but i am currently studying them to be able to update the page with informative, factual evidence and i would like to work with you in this. If you are itching to remove/undo a future edit on the Burzynski page, please think twice, and ensure you are editing according to the rules. I can see below you have reactively edited and then agreed that another, less severe course of action was probably more warranted.
People that are dying and have been given a short amount of time to live, are trying to get information on this subject. All i am asking is that you follow the principles of Wikipedia in your future edits on the Burzynski page.
One day someone you love, or perhaps even yourself, will get cancer. I'm sure you will think about this differently then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.109 ( talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
For what reason are you disrupting the Transcendent Man film article with blanket reverts, removal of an image, and deletion of a list of people who appear in the film? So far, your edit summaries do not support your edits. Please make use of the article talk page to explain your edits. Viriditas ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, just thought I'd inform you that you've blocked this IP user, but not put a template on his page informing him of it and what he can do to appeal it. That Ole Cheesy Dude ( Talk to the hand!) 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, HELP! As a result of a recent edit by another editor to a page I watch, links to the Code of Federal Regulations were changed to the form 26 CFR xx using AWB. This {{}} tool does not link to current regs. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. I'm not sure how the tool links or how to fix it, but it needs fixing if it is to continue to be used. Thanks for your help. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My talkpage is getting swarmed by IP voices of recognition and complaints for editing an article on environmental migrants. This is to let you know that at least one such user has complained about your removal of repetitive usertalk messages about editing sustanability articles. Although you might not take their concerns seriously or perhaps consider them to be trolling, I tend to consider concerns of any Wikipedia editor seriously regardless of their POV or involvement in editing disputes. Also, I am not asking that you remove any comments from my talkpage, as I still consider them legitimate issues. If you wish, you may respond here rather than on my talkpage, and we could start to resolve the dispute between your editing style and the concerns of certain IP editors. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 01:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The IP jumper has violated a 1RR here. Not sure how to handle this persons editing on articles like this. However, you seem to have some experience dealing with them as well. Arzel ( talk) 02:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Four different editors have of late removed the conspiracy links from this template. I strongly encourage you to cease adding these links to this template. If you are not satisfied, you well know WP:DR. Please follow it. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur...in April I awarded you a Defender of Wiki barnstar for your 9/11 article related work, and I stand by that decision. We may not always agree, but I hold you in high esteem nevertheless. Best wishes to you.-- MONGO 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well you really surprise me. You have placed a POV tag on this article and announced at DYK that you dispute its accuracy. That would have been fine if you had said what your dispute is, and why you consider the article is POV. But you do not appear to have done that anywhere. Have you got some reasonable argument? If not, then what is going on with you? Admins should not behave like this. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please self-revert, otherwise I will report you.
Viriditas (
talk)
08:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Rubin, however awkwardly IPs state their case, it is you who comes across as the POV warrior. It is time you came clean and explained where the obsessive flurry of obstructive edits you make on planetary boundaries comes from. There is nothing I can find in the literature to support your position, apart from some throwaway comments made by Stuart Pimm when the concept was first floated. And I note that Pimm does not appear to have repeated or expanded his objections, and it may be that it is Pimm who has the egg on his face. Are you coming from a religious fundamentalist position? Or is it just that you genuinely believe, that even if God if not looking after all of this for you, then everything is going to be fine anyway, because that is what you want, and that the concept of habitable boundaries must therefore be nonsense? If these comments misrepresent your position, then it is long overdue for you to explain and justify just what your position really is. Can you do that? If not, then soon I'm going to start reverting your more eccentric and dysfunctional edits. You are bringing administrators into disrepute behaving this way. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking pretty hard for sources. The book's been cited many times but not discussed. It might meet "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" from WP:BK#Academic and technical books. Anyway, you were talking about possibly nominating the prior content so I thought I'd drop you a note.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
17th century BC. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Quit removing factual information regarding Pfizer. I will sit here and revert your changes forever.
I will provide a source then...if you remove it after that we know your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you consider Pfizer to be a reliable source? This is your final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The factual statement, "Premarin, a hormone replacement drug created from the urine of pregnant mares which a percentage of are eventually sent to slaughter houses" come from the GAO slaughter report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your extraordinary diligence on climate change articles, accompanied by an amazing ability to stay out of the mud. SPhilbrick T 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
(I really wanted a "takes a licking and keeps on ticking barnstar, but I couldn't find one)
I don't think I'm edit warring and I'm not trying to edit war. I only reverted one person's edit. The article seemed to be better as I wrote it.- Rememberway ( talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to bother you, but I wasn't sure whether you'd read the history, Fly by Night recently removed the whole thing, we had got a link to turn (geometry) obviously because there's tau radians to the turn, which is what makes it useful of course since a turn is an identity. Or link to Pi#Criticism? I'm 3RR at the moment on it due to wretched Quandle, but obviously do whatever you want. - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
p.s. An Erdos number of 1? Sweet. - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
p.p.s. poodle of doom could well be a sock puppet, feel free to check user, it's not me either! ;-) - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are you people deleting an image with the same use and raitonal as: File:AFC-1960-Uniform-NE.PNG [30]
The pictures all have the form filled out and are the same as other NFL articles which meet standards and are NOT being deleted.
If there is paperwork that is incorrect, then help get it to conform, but the rationale and fair use is 100% the same as [31].
If you have a problem, delete the Boston Patriots seasons and other teams as well. Right now what you are doing is very close to wiki-stalking abd you've not attempted to discuss this. You have not assumed good faith and are vengence-editing. RussFrancisTE81 ( talk) 15:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reported your actions to [32] I do not think you acted in good faith and are picking on me and wiki-stalked me without contacting me. It seemed likeyou were edit-warring with me and that is why I stopped. My usages are 100% the same as the ones I posted. All I want to to be treated fairly and not picked on or attacked and your actions are inexcusible. I admitted I don't know the rules to a "T" but I can see that scores of articles are using similar pictures and are not being attacked by you RussFrancisTE81 ( talk) 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Arthur Runin. I left a comment for you about Geomagic squares at Talk:Magic square -- Foobarnix ( talk) 08:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
About Convention (norm) edit 06:39, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143
Which are the few which you agree to and which are these you do not agree to?
Mormegil 87.18.197.73 ( talk) 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The same for Purpose (edit 05:47, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143)
Mormegil 87.18.197.73 ( talk) 12:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault&diff=438709556&oldid=438699733 ... (Revert inappropriate changes; don't unlink redlinks, as it may generate new article; don't add hyperlinks in body...they go in the External Links section; Portwave appears to be a personal website, so it isn't a valid source.) ... User:Huntster 99.181.151.89 ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur I deleted your proposal to delete " Dark side of planning." The term "Dark side of planning" is widely used in planning and planning research, see references. Your reason for deletion, i.e., "The term is rarely used in the real world," applies to an even higher degree to numerous other entries on wikipedia, for instance subjects in economics, math, etc. So if you were to be consistent all these other entries, many of which are well established, should also be proposed for deletion. Your reason for deletion also does not seem to appear on the official list of reasons for deletion. I therefore kindly ask you to not propose deletion. This entry is important to those of us who work in planning. I hope this is okay with you? Kind regards Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. If the discussion concludes that the article should be deleted, I would like to suggest that the article is instead moved to the "Planning" article as a subheading in this. Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What exactly do you mean by "more precise" in respect to Eulers identity? Perhaps an good thing to expound a little on that? Kleuske ( talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you've added to your user pages that you'll be attending law school soon and will be busy with less time for Wikipedia. Just wanted to say thanks for your history of reverts on touchy articles like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Alex Jones (radio host), among other articles I happen to watch as well - your watchful eye is appreciated and hasn't gone unnoticed. Making sense of the nonsense can be tedious! Hopefully you'll be reasonably conscious on Wikipedia though. By the way, will you be seeking to concentrate in any particular field of law, be it civil, criminal, international, etc.? John Shandy` • talk 05:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, Thanks for the reminder. The correct URL for 26 CFR 1.61-2 looks like this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:2.0.1.1.1.0.2.2&idno=26
The link to the table of contents for Title 26 looks like this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title26/26tab_02.tpl
I have stripped off the session id that the GPO's system puts in. This website is updated daily for CFR changes (all titles), and is generally the most complete and accurate available. Thanks for the help! And your sage advice is always appreciated. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 02:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
SwisterTwister has eaten your cookies! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating them. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:plate}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat the cookies with {{ subst:munchplate}}!
In case you get hungry during law classes, I've packed a plate of cookies for you, enjoy. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Exuse me. Where do you write about this? You explain, please [33]-- Many baks ( talk) 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, user Cherkash has edited Foreign tax credit using AWB to insert links to the Code of Federal Regulations using the Wikipedia function that links to the wrong place (out of date regs). I cannot undo the changes. That article now has links to regs that are obsolete. I have left the user two messages (one some time ago) about this problem, to no apparent effect. Can you undo the changes to Foreign tax credit? Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 22:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
In case you're not still watching it, I commented briefly at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Overlinking_of_magazines_or_publishers.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 07:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I was curious about which article you were referring to in respect of the standard win score being 121. The wikipedia article on cribbage cites 121 or 61 and although I don't claim to be an expert on the game I thought the reference I posted ought to have been a good enough source (as in the expression "according to Hoyle"). This is my first contribution to a talk page, btw, so forgive any silly mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to know your thoughts on the Natural Number 0 and why you reverted it. Wikipedia should be consistent, and in the conclusion of the natural numbers Wikipedia page, it references that 0 is NOT widely accepted as a Natural Number, so it should not be included in the list of natural numbers, which people may refer to and incorrectly use as a natural number even though it is not widely accepted. I figure I should Post this on your talk page so we don't keep reverting back and forth.
63.100.53.2 ( talk) 21:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you see this? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
the page Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality/Population puts automatic information of NIS in the part population Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality
example look to Aalst, Belgium, it's 2006, look the dutch one http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aalst_(Oost-Vlaanderen) and you have the 2010 information
so you can't change it you're self but the current information is quite old 2006!
there is a list of 2010 on http://economie.fgov.be/nl/binaries/Pop%20Bevolk%2001012010_v2_f_tcm325-109882.xls
is it please possible for someone to update this?
it's really ridiculous because on the dutch page everything is 2010 but when people of other countries update information they look mostly on the english page and copy that information so they put the 2006 information of the english page while correct information of 2010 is on the dutch page
so please can someone do something?
Klodde ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
See thank you on WP:TEA. (",) 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... dude, WTF?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to join in with the discusion. Robo37 ( talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
Thank you for all your comments on the articles that i posted. It seems that the quality standards in the English section are much higher than in the Dutch section that i normally write for. In the future i will include references.
You proposed to delete the article about Peter Colfs. In this case i think you might be right. The Dutch article that i wrote some time ago in Dutch was based on the following link http://www.simonis-buunk.nl/collectie/details/Peter_Colfs_9164.aspx but maybe this is not a reliable source because as you mentioned Peter Colfs is not mentioned in the article about the Prix de Rome. Therefore i have listed it in the Portal:Arts/Things you can do to be verified and expanded. I also removed most of the statements in the article.
I don't agree with your deletion proposal for the Buddhist monastry Wene Karmae Chö Ling. I think this building is just as notable as all the other small monastries that are mentioned in Wikipedia (and have the Buddhism-monastery-stub-template). What makes it special is that it is one of the few buddhist monatries in the Netherlands and also one of the few in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weetjesman ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please re add the study because it is based on reliable sources not a conspiracy as you wrongly alleged, for further discussion visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Removing_of_Greenpeace_Study Gise-354x ( talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute going on with User:Loonymonkey, User:Tommyboy1215 and yours truly regarding how to handle the U.S. Chamber of Commerce controversy on the Lee Fang page. Would you mind having a look? Starbucksian ( talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for sorting out the Category:Global warming controversy formatting (on reflection it's obvious it disappears from main text {{{forehead slap}}}). Out of interest, what does the first colon "mean"? Is it useful anywhere else? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 02:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. To date there have been six people inviolved in discussions on this article. So at present its three against three. I therefore don't see how you can fairly argue for a consensus aginst the lead as it is.
Of the three of them who were involved in the discussion about inclusion of the word 'fringe' as a definition in the intro, two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have not contested nor expressed any difficulty with the new lead. So again how do you suppose it goes against consensus? In fact its even been edited and adjusted slightly.
One of these three has accepted the lead as it is ("I don't care at all about the lead paragraph right now - I'm only concerned that... " etc. John Shandy), so he has accepted it.
Two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have since suggested we other three go ahead and make whatever changes we think and when they have more time, they intend to discuss: "do what you will with it we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with..." etc. So my change is totally in accordance with what these two people have suggested we do so and is therefore TOTALLY in concord with those involved in the discussion and therefore can not be fairly undone on a claim of reverting to consensus view.
Its three against three without any of the above and both the main protaganists have accepted changes being made till they have more time.
Please do not now stop us moving forward by edit warring after this agreement with Loremaster and John Shandy. To do so mean we we get nowhere. And if you disagree please discuss first, then we can all see what the consensus is. It is very frustrating that after all our discussions you feel you can come in without discussing or contributing at all except to revert and undo.
I have also added this message to you to the conspiracy theory discussion page, so if you want to answer, please do so there.-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You do realise that the version you just removed, is the same version that you reverted TO on 26 August, claiming it was the "stable version"??? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for (hopefully) getting this anonymous un-hatter better educated about use of wiki talk pages thru a temporary block. Its possible they meant it in good faith, but hopefully they'll someday read WP:DISRUPT, where it says even good faith edits are disruptive if the editor doesn't know wiki guidelines and how to edit pages accordingly. Mucho gracias, NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect to Talk:Climate change policy of the United States please be mindful of WP:3RR. The edit warring presently happening is inconsequential in the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#What_is_a_limit_ordinal.3F, where discussion is currently taking place rather than assuming consensus without evidence. Currently most editors in the discussion favor language that is neutral to both definitions, as both definitions appear in multiple textbook sources (and respected Universities and departments which rely upon a single source, also differ between which of the two they use). TricksterWolf ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm telling you anything new, judging from this-- 50.42.182.54 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.190.84.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), that's the same editor. Drmies ( talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Except that 50. seemed to have an obscenity filter. I scanned through his edits and I think all the filter trips have been reversed, but another pair of eyes would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arhtur,
I found ur new editoring to the norm inequities between r norm and p norm. I think it will be better to put the conditions to hold the equality there, like did by the original version.
Thanks!
Shuai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, since entrywise matrix norm is in parallel to vector norm after vectorization, it is very necessary to add the entrywise inequalities under different p norms.How about the section "Equivalence of norms"? I think that is a good place to plug it in. Thank you for your hardworking even on labor day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 ( talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a reply to my question "Reference to cribbage in the '61 (number)' article" (now archived), I'll just put the page back the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point of view regarding the non-interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources for this purpose. However, under WP:CALC, performing an average calculation doesn't constitute interpretation, which is why I'm trying to stick to the primary source in this instance. You seem experienced and unbiased and I'd appreciate your help in keeping this edit as accurate and sanitary as possible. I've been trying to keep the edit clean for a while now but others keep throwing dirt and nonsense on it. Your thoughts? Quophnix ( talk) 16:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Decoherence in the environment is monitored through the Wigner distribution function of the system, and its gradual loss of negative values with time. Zurek and collaborators, cf refs 6,5,4 in the article, are quite proud of their extensive work on the subject; I am not clear on what you expected to see. I believe the Wigner quasi-probability distribution function, which is the density matrix in the phase-space representation, is the tool to use in developing any usable intuition on quantum decoherence, if the non-Throop reader is to make any sense of the article at all, as it stands. Your call to reinstate the wikilink. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my edit (on the Tea Party movement) I was correcting that the source (already listed in the page as name="vogel1" [2] ) reads "...the poll also found that tea partiers are less educated, but more interested in politics." and the wiki page reads "...likely to be more wealthy and have more education" and sources that article. I did not add a source, I simply moved the source already present, as there is a clear error here, or rather a selective exclusion or bias towards certain parts of the source. Smzcl ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been pondering whether to merge this with Timeline of the far future. I've been going over the remaining material and, bar the fictional references, which could be broken off into their own article, I'm not sure which listed events are truly noteworthy. Most of them aren't sourced and those that are are heavily slanted- are occultations of Regulus, as opposed to any other star, really that important? Anyway, don't mean to come off as a grumpy guts but I thought I'd let you know where I stood on this before doing anything. Serendi pod ous 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I found some citations for some of the information on the page, so I'm in the process of moving the information over. But it will take some time. Serendi pod ous 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit conflicted as to whether [34] constitutes a reliable source. Which is a shame because I think the info deserves to be included. Serendi pod ous 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur, I'm looking into the behavior of some IPs. I notice that 97.87.29.188 and you seem to have been in a scrap about Oct 2010 somehow related to their pet project, the plan.bound. article. Is that about when the IPs advocacy of that article really took off? What's the backstory? No rush, drop me a line inbetween cram sessions for the bar (no sense putting it off you know...) Best of luck in the new endeavor. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
for|(the) current climate change|global warming}}
to all articles loosely related to climate change, linking
scientific opinion on climate change to every opinion (whether or not be a scientist) on global warming, and a few others still mentioned in
User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change, even though they're not doing that any more. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)What's the problem of articles about socio-cognitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-cognitive ? You've written "still sourced only to Gadomski" it's not only of Gadomski articles.
First you look, after, where is something not related to socio-cognitive concepts, remove it.
Are you an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so. -- CogSci11 ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My question was: Are YOU an expert in cognitive science? And.... Do you work in a department of cognitive science? Have you written an scientifi journal article on cognitive science? Do you present poster/presentation on cognitive science conference?
If NO, you have no right to remove anything in socio-cognitive topic. -- CogSci11 ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"encyklopedia everyone can edit" but the founder of Wikipedia have assumed that their editors are reasonable and they correct either formal properties of articles or they correct those which really refer to their knowledge.
You've written: "Expert opinion are welcome". Mr Gadomski is an expert in cognitive science as a member of the scientific board of ECONA (Interuniversity Center for Research on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems) which include 12 biggest Italian Universities and is chairman of many international cognitive science conferences. Mr Gadomski was in editorial board of Cognitive Processing (ed. Springer) by few years. And look: First International Workshop Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SCEF/index.html where list of members of the scientific board, is evidence on the recognition of Gadomski. I've written this link, because I suppose, you don't know these persons which are universally recognized as authorities on the cognitive subject.
Mr Gadomski is an expert. You're not. I'm sorry. Write into google engine "socio-cognitive engineering" and everybody may see results: Wikipedia Sharples Gadomski Gadomski Gadomski Sharples In socio-cognitive engineering are two main approaches, one represented by Sharples(more focused on human oriented technology development/informatics perspective) and second by Gadomski(based on general sistemic perspective/paradigms http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/toga-parad.htm and functional representation of abstract inteligent agent). The approach of Castelfranchi is closer to Gadomski but Castelfranchi underline stronger social aspect of socio-cognitive modelling.
You've written too:
- "the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources" and you removed good source from international journal! Are web pages more reliable than articles of Gadomski?
- "still sourced only to Gadomski" and you removed articles, where is more than one author (Adam Maria Gadomski, Sandro Bologna, Giovanni Di Costanzo, Anna Perini, Marco Schaerf, Mauro Cappelli, Massimo Sepielli). Congratulations.
No logic. No sence.
-- CogSci11 ( talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how looked this situation in the past. I know that you're not an expert in cognitive science domain (I'm sorry. It's true) and you shouldn't remove link to good journal (I bought one of this article and I can write that is good). I finished study of cognitive science but I don't want write my surname. You're unpredictable, don't keep rules of discussion and you don't answer on my questions and you've written that 'no sense is correct' - no comments) and I think that giving any information about me don't change this situation. Wikipedia can check my login/log/e-mail and they know that I am not Mr Gadomski.
I'm convinced that you have no right removing new articles from good source (never mind who is an author). o! I saw that I pasted wrong link (referring to login page) to the article(joint work), better is http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.6341&rank=1 article is better than abstract. I think, that somebody could ask Mr Gadomski to insert this article on his page but I supposed that it can be problem with copyright but in wikipedia is lot of links to books and to the materials not directly available on the web.(nevermind)
Now I'm sorry but I don't have so lot of time like you. I don't know what you do every day but I see that you're editing at night and day very different topics. Are you an expert of everything?
If you write 'no sense is correct', further discussion has no sence. I'll insert link of this discussion on Gadomski user page(if it's user page of really Mr A.M.Gadomski). Anyway. Thank you. I didn't know that he has a user page on wikipedia and I see that you discussed with Mr Gadomski on his user talk page. It's interesting :) Anyway, Have a nice day and night removing... :) -- CogSci11 ( talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, In my opinion my addition in the Climate change in the United States deserved its place. [35] I received WP:Tea for this addition. [36]
In the discussion we can agree about the appropriate sources: Talk:Climate change in the United States. Watti Renew ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't understand your short comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Lindenberg ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"if someone other than you propounded it" - Bob Palais (the author of Pi is Wrong) has propounded the idea that students make mistakes with extra or missing 2's or 1/2's in their formulas because of this, both publicly and in emails to me.
When you say my two paragraphs have nothing not in common, do you mean they're repetitive? The second paragraph is purely about the practical benefits (fewer equations to memorize, fewer mistakes). The first paragraph is about this three-way symmetry being an indication that tau is the true circle constant.
When you have three sets of equations that match each other closely in form, the word "symmetry" seems accurate. What would you rather I call it?
What's already in the article doesn't mention the thin triangles at all, which these other equations are derived from, and doesn't mention the "symmetry" between the equations for circumference and arclength.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The drawing at the top of my web page sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool might help make this clearer. There are also a couple paragraphs of explanatory text below it, if that helps.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't quoting my web page as a source. I was just giving a link to a drawing that shows the idea more clearly than I can express in written text. I created an external link with the word "Illustration", not a reference. However, I've been developing that drawing with feedback from Bob Palais, Michael Hartl, Peter Harremoes, and Kevin Houston.
The point I was trying to make by spelling out that the area of the thin triangle was instead of just writing is that I'm not saying this is just a very short arc. Of course we can use on any size arc no matter how small. But this is a triangle with three straight sides. That's why I list it separately as a third case.
Until I can convince you this argument has enough merit not to be deleted, I'll post my web page under Further reading.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 10:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I modified the entry that was there to include the circumference/arclength formula similarity. This time, unlike last time, I did put my web page as a reference. I could also list
Peter Harremoës's page and
a forum posting by Pi Manifesto author Michael Cavers to show you I'm not the only one who has mentioned this argument for tau publicly. But my website has the most thorough treatment of it. I actually do hope that changes as more people become aware of this argument for tau.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality
Is there something you're not understanding? Public awareness ( talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A terrorist is someone who tries to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people. By that standard, the 19 hijackers of 9/11/01 were terrorists. This is a matter of fact, not just opinion. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards. SomeHuman 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Euler's Identity contains a section about how Euler's Identity is just a special case of a more general identity. Is it possible to put a footnoted reference to it in another Wikipedia article? (Or would this particular fact just be considered "common knowledge" that doesn't require a footnoted reference?)
Thanks for your help.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 02:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep this kind of thing up and you won't be an administrator for much longer. [37] Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Number 8 is referenced four places. What term did you mean? "Pizza-style slices"? Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I am glad to see that you are still editing Wikipedia. You probably do not remember me; I tried to help User:Ludvikus when he was improving the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Someone has created an article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please could you keep an eye on it.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
"Conspiracy accounts" is common and easily understandable English, but your new version is fine as well. Mystylplx ( talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion might be controversial, so send it to AfD. Bearian ( talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be very grateful if you can explain the logic of your comment here to me, as I do not understand it. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur....neither Malleus or John have a leg to stand on here...John has shown repeated examples of loathsome behavior for an admin and I can easily demonstrate that with a plethora of diffs should the need arise. A topic ban is in order for both editors...and a outright civility parole is inevitable for Malleus at the very least. MONGO 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I hate to eavesdrop, but I tend to talk-stalk admins I've had good encounters with. While you've been accused of incivility, I see as clear as day on your talk page that editors have directly and overtly attempted to insult you, dismiss you as a kid (knowing full well that you are an adult), and attack your education, all of which are uncalled for no matter what mistakes or misinterpretations you may make. If these editors ever manage to gather enough children of the corn to call your administrative position into question, please notify me of the venue and I will gladly testify to the attacks insidiously launched at you in this talk page discussion. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the merger of 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime I think you can go ahead with that per WP:MERGE Proposing a merger IV. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following validated information which was promptly deleted.
___________
___________
If the FDA, NIH, and PubMed can not be cited, what relevance does the article have. It is only a censored part truth with an agenda. All of these sites are available to be freely linked to. The information is entirely relevant.
If the link to the video is an issue, it, along with others is available on youtube.com .
You Wrote: :#That's not what you added.
The information above was cut from my computer and pasted into the page. I can not see how you claim that it is not what I added.
You Wrote: A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.
No, you are apparantly not aware that Hulda Clark was not the first or only one to promote the use of pulses. Even the FDA promotes the use of pulses to kill microbes such are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and virus in milk, juices, and water. [8]
You Wrote: :#The videos are clearly not reliable.
The videos are easily reproduced using only a source of pulsed electricity and a video microscope. They are made by amateurs and professionals alike. It is not a parlor trick, it is real.
You Wrote: :#"Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.
The basis of all of this is the generation of resonant frequencies. Everything has some sort of resonance. I would submit that if you are not studied in this then you are not the person who should be rejecting the entries of those who are familiar.
On top of that, I see you frequently hiding behind the mask of neutrality, yet in this case, you are obviously taking a side with an agenda. The entire page is strictly one-sided and these are not the first facts that have been unreasonably rejected. The net result, Mr. Orwell is that WikiPedia ( the source of reliable information ) is becoming Wiki-Ganda ( a source of propaganda ).
Perhaps you should start by reading "Body Electric" by Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. It is an outstanding source of information on the influences of electricity on life and visa versa. Then study the Medical Electric Battery, Rife, Beck, and many others.
Regardless, seeing that actions that have occurred here explains to me why the WikiPedia is not considered to be a credible source of information. It only tells the half of the story that the controllers want the public to hear.
How many of Dr. Clark's books have you read completely and thoroughly?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CPUDave (
talk •
contribs)
03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for forgetting to sign.
CPUDave ( talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies.
The very fact that the zapper does actually produce pulses across and through the body can be observed and documented using an oscilloscope. This has been done and images are available at paradevices.com [9] [10]. Even WikiPedia [11] shows that validity of Bio-electric stimulation which is the same thing, just a different term. The point here is that denying public access to this information when there is nothing to refute it is nothing more than blatant censorship.
As for the efficacy of the zapper, this too, has been established in at least one study. [12] This study shows that the "total with any improvement was 97.9%" ( for those who used the zapper ) and "In the control group, the average control also had 1.1 chronic infections; ... total with any improvement was 61.3%. In the group that used the zapper "48.2% reported substantial symptomatic improvement" where in the control group, only "12.9% reported significant improvement" This clearly shows that the zapper had a positive effect in a study with a control group. There has never been any study to refute this in any way. Disallowing this information, again is censorship.
I believe that I read somewhere that you are studying law. I would hope that your pursuit of this is in the interest of fairness and justice and not for the purposes of oppression which is what is happening here. Readers of the WikiPedia should have a RIGHT to hear both sides of the story in an unbiased manner.
CPUDave ( talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 ( talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The left of a production rule in a grammar can be null. Here is the proof:
Imagine there is a rule in the grammar that says:
λ -> a B C | A B c | ...
And there are other rules such as:
A b C -> X y Z w
I can construct a grammar from this grammar that doesn't have null on the left of production rule and produces EXACTLY what this grammar produces:
Let's introduce a new nonterminal called L (named after lambda)
First rule is:
L -> λ
Then, all the rules are present, except between every two elements (terminal or nonterminal), there is an L. Therefore you get:
L -> L a L B L C L | L A L B L c L | ...
That was for the rule where it said λ -> ...
And for the rest of the grammar:
L A L b L C L -> L X L y L Z L w L
This new grammar produces the same words as the first grammar. In the first grammar, you could put an expression anywhere "out of the blue" because there is a λ between any element and it could produce an expression (because of the rule λ -> ...). In the second case, this role is played by L where, whatever you produce has L's between any non-L element. L can produce the expressions λ could produce in the first grammar and is itself reduce-able to λ.
This was a question in the book "An introduction to formal languages and automata" by Peter Linz which asked what are the implications of having λ on the left of a production rule. I came with this proof that in fact the restriction is not necessary. After no one believing me in the university (like you here), I emailed Peter Linz himself and he said that in fact that restriction is just for simplicity and in Turing's thesis is also not mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have that email anymore to show you.
I couldn't find on the internet the original "paper" that defined unrestricted grammars, but I came across this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_grammar that also states that there are no restrictions on either side of the production rule.
P.S. If you are interested in an example of such a grammar, imagine this
λ -> ()
This grammar produces nested parentheses. Without using λ, you had to write it like this:
S -> (S) | SS | λ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I provided information of interest to the subject matter about our not having a year zero and you deleted it. The reason you are stating is that the information is not subject related. However, if there are no mathematical systems in which zero is absent, then this helps readers understand that our having a calendar without a zero is a man-made accomplishment (similar to art, and not nature). There is no reason to ridicule the man-made result, but it is good for the wiki-readers to know the difference why the calendar arrived without a zero. Here is the information one more time, and I hope you will revert your deletion, since wiki is about information on the subject matters, and the artful aspect of it should not be left out of the picture.
If you (or others) can write a better introduction, then I appreciate that. From a mathematical perspective, systems always come with a zero (i.e., a blank spot).
Mathematics
Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.
When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.
Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html
Greetings,
Fredrick FredrickS ( talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I closed the discussion and merged 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Rubin:
I see that it is not possible to edit the introduction at the top of the Griffin page.
There is a link to your name there.
Are these two things connected?
The page fails to mention that Dr. Griffin was professor of philosophy of religion and theology, from 1973 to 2004, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.
Thank you,
PureLogic PureLogic ( talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
you obviously do not now anything about my country, and I am so sorry about that. Wikipedia is obviously not free and it does not share knowlege..it is a faschistic place for the privileged molesters. The fact that I posted is true. Live long and prosper my mathematician friend. 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.60.137 ( talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendi pod ous 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, btw I'm talking about Timeline of the far future Serendi pod ous 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I made a new proposition on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish Tk 08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
List of 'Occupy' protest locations. Another clueless admin who makes changes without discussion. I have been editing the page. Have you? My page name change is uncontroversial. If you had read the discussion and followed the links you would have seen that the discussion was not about whether single or double quotes were used. Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The point of my proof is that CH is independent of ZF but.... It is not independent of ZFC and Induction. So you need to assume two things... and then you prove something you knew... and something you didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Learn what a trichotomy is, and what strong induction is, then you should be able to understand why I am right even though Cantor was also correct.
Don't worry, you'll be able to understand it when I explain it to CMI and get my million. Thanks for looking though, I appreciate people asking questions so that I can show there's nothing wrong with it.
WhatisFGH ( talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
a cool hip teacher, and is very knowlageable on the american liturature arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indians15 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I've your edits and comments on a number of subjects I edit, all I gotta say is right on man. You seem to edit in a fair and non-partisan way which is great. I think it is rare to find people willing to give both people the time of day at an argument. Keep up the good work, we need more editors like you.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Please view the discussion at the article's talk page concerning the content in question, and accept this friendly reminder that you have made three reversions on The Colbert Report article within 24 hours, and that your last edit was not a minor one, as it removed content as part of a dispute, and that rollback should not be used for such. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Hey Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).
If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).
I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've been watching 99.190.85.15 and yourself adding and deleting a link to Executive Order 13514- ie 13514 . When I follow the link it takes me to a reasonable copy of http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf . Is there a reason that you hate the s: link so much? Could you tell the guys at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that perhaps you two can come to an agreement because continually adding and deleting it with no real explanation is driving the rest of us crazy. Thanks. Stepho talk 06:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add a in-heading summary to describe the gist of your proposal here. That page is getting swamped in proposals already, and I think participation is dwindling because of WP:TLDR. Having some meaningful headings would probably help. Per WP:TPG I could even do it myself, but I'd rather have you summarize your own proposal. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, what in the name of God are you doing in law school? Strikes me as a perfect waste of a first-rate mind and an expensive graduate education in mathematics. LOL
BTW, the so-called "TQ" punctuation that I learned in grade school always placed semi-colons and colons outside the quotation marks in a partial quote of original text. I don't believe that's an ALWD innovation; I believe it's a standard part of the usual American system of quotation. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Plarem has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
Happy Halloween! – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs)
15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Again ... What? How so, per you? 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Prepare to Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels#Include_global_warming_wikilink_and_Portal:global_warming. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Land use, land-use change and forestry. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Global warming. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings, also regarding Fleet vehicle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fleet_vehicle&diff=459367260&oldid=459367164), and Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emissions_%26_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID)&diff=459367339&oldid=459367206). 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Emissions_&_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID). Please follow your own excellent advice and withdraw from the conflict before someone gets hurt. I hate it when excellent admins get caught up in what is "right" and allow themselves to be taken down for not following the rules. Thank you. Ebikeguy ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear, Arthur, I see that you and I disagree as to the reliability of the book, Annals of the World. Where I use it as the foremost reference point for Biblical and Jewish history, you seem to deem it so wrong that any article that references it must be totally destroyed. Every time I try to defend its integrity, or at least the rational to leave the article standing, you flatly ignore me and simply direct me to Wikipedia policies that are non sequitur. So I'm going to take this from a different approach this in the nicest possible way. You tell me, out of your infinite wisdom, what exactly constitutes a reliable, verifiable source? (If the problem with Annals of the World is not because its not a reliable, verifiable source, then you have no right deleting it, as per WP:Accuracy). If for no other reason, I would just like to know what constitutes an accurate source, simply so that my work doesn't get deleted again.
By the way, I also don't understand, even if that one reference was totally unacceptable, how that justifies deleting the whole article. If you actually read my work, you would know I quoted many works outside of Ussher. What makes Ussher so evil, that any article he's mentioned in must be deleted, at the sacrifice of all the other reference? What exactly are you afraid of? But more important than this, I would just like you to give me a definition of a reliable source, please. LutherVinci ( talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library | ||
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic· t 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
There is someone editing as an IP and hopping around lots of Ip addersses in Michigan. Do you have any idea who this could be? [39] [40] They seem to revert quite a few your edits, but that could be just because you are patrolling IP edits. I'm not sure what's up with the IP editor but I'm slowly looking into it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, You had removed a section on unfair Labour Practices in the article about The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy because it was unsourced and seemed irrelevant. It had, however, replaced an earlier section that was indeed sourced, and I believe it is highly relevant because the Institute is known for its large number of interns that spam and cold call universities all over the world. I have therefore reinserted the older passage (which was not written by myself!). I am happy to discuss this if you disagree. Best SkaraB 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I notice
this user and either he is stalking your edits or vice versa. Is this a known sock? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated a modified background section that omits what you describe as "trivia" but retains items material to the biography. Do not continue to delete relevant, sourced information from the article. Please note that this person is definitely notable and will continue to have an entry here. I suggest you compare the entries for Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme to see how this article will end up looking. I am going to keep working on the first paragraph of the Oscar article, because right now it is really terrible. Bundlesofsticks ( talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, a link to the RfC would be necessary, and please remind me whether the RfC really did say that local consensus can override the community's consensus in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you said, "Please disregard my comment about the sports timelines. There seems to be no project consensus." That is how the matter has been understood. Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
to say that i have been 3RR'ing when now you see the scope of this massive disaster here ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davshul, disruptive editing) --- if only i had been listened to at the begining-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
[41] Better use talk, the in-line space appear too limited. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a user who tried adding some wrong information into the Cardinality page Introduction 11/26/2011. Sorry I got that completely wrong. I was thinking that it might be really nice to have some reference to Cardinality of the Continuum in the Intro in really simple terms to give math newbs some idea of what they are getting themselves into by looking at Cardinality. I know it's included in the very next section after that (Comparing Sets) with links to look up natural numbers and real numbers if someone doesn't know what those are. And the amount of weight that someone that knows about set theory gives to its different parts(or how they think about it) is probably different than what someone else can appreciate. But it seems like cardinality being able to distinguish between different infinite sets is a pretty profound thought for someone not used to it, and that this would be good to introduce in the introduction to sort of soften the blow. So on behalf of the mathematically challenged I guess I'm asking you to consider fixing the section I tried adding and leaving it in. For people that already know about cardinality, they can just be mildly annoyed, but reassured in their memory I think. For people that don't know I think it really could help in their appreciation of what they've come upon.
Please delete after reading.
Thanks, J'odore ( talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this.
Hi Arthur - You recently reverted our posting on a planned Taiwan facility using Plasma to process Electrical Waste. Please can you advise what specific content you found to be advertising and we will amend accordingly. The facility is currently under intallation and people will be interested to know that it's in development. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.69.142 ( talk) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur, Good to see a fellow Techer fighting pseudoscience; especially good when we're talking about giving false hope to kids with cancer...
Sorry I'm late to the scene but I'll try to keep my eye on it from now on
Karthik Sarma ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to sign my comment on User talk:Abootmoose? CüRlyTüRkey Talk Contribs 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Today I discovered multiple edits done to the article Hierapolis which came from 2 different editors but the similarity in the edits makes me think that they were done by the same person. The edits were inappropriate or constituted vandalism so I removed all of them. I would like your opinion on this. The accounts are Maviyansima and Peterlewis. Dr. Morbius ( talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
See the "connection" in that article (the "Koch connection" ) - which cites Greenpeace without identifying the "dirty dozen" as opinion, and implying it is an official list from the UN -- the entire article is pretty much a laugh. Collect ( talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If Michael Leahy's and Brooks Bayne's websites aren't reliable sources for Tea Party information, then the Tea Party never happened! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Fail how? Those two were there from day one. I've never heard of you. What qualifies you to be an arbiter of tea party information?
Arthur Rubin you and some others have made so many deletions [42] in my work [43] in 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that I feel that all my work is waisteless here. In my opinion the information has reliable sources that can be verified. In my opinion Greenpeace is a reliable source. Reader may evaluate it. Finland had independence jubileum 6th of December. Greenpeace was invited in the presidents castle party, the most important governmental party of the year. Watti Renew ( talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I start discussion of this edit [44] on talk page this week. Watti Renew ( talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I read somewhere that you are in law school. If so, any interest in helping out with some legal articles? Appeal could use some help. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
I see you removed all the links I added. Why is that? The Magic Square links for example were to excellent web pages, completely relevant to that article.
Bob Ziff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziff ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They were relevant because the water retention problem has been studied extensively on magic square and more recently on random surfaces. I just put that "water retention on mathematical surfaces" page up as a shell -- much more is to be added. In any case, I don't see how this controversy relates to what links are valid for the magic squares page. For example, one of the web links you removed was to the same webpage (Gaspalou's) as already exists there in Reference 14. 68.40.190.29 ( talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, At standard part I was merely trying to include a brief application of this concept, to indicate its significance. Is it worth having a brief summary of infinitesimal definitions of derivative and integral here? Tkuvho ( talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another. Rockin291 ( talk) 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop being rude to me It does not matter whether the people of the future don't celebrate the 1000th anniversary or not because it has already been signed so no smart aleck can just say no. Just like a 50th birthday for example Say someone was born on January 1, 1961, then they would be 50 on January 1, 2011, and no one can just say no because he was born that day, so no matter what, they are 50 that day So Stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.152.50 ( talk) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised when I saw that the readdition of the jersey numbers to 10 (number) was done by someone who has contact with numbers beyond the stadium, and that this is indeed a standard you guys at WP:NUM agreed on. So, I trust your judgment that it is appropriate in that place.
But what about the duplication? As I wrote, I moved the information to Squad_number#Number_10. I hope you agree with me that having article-sized chunks of information duplicated in two articles is not a good solution, and that we should rather decide on one of them.
Now, between the two locations, the Squad number article seems clearly more appropriate to me: This is where I, at least, would look for such information.
In this light, I have considered to post a message at WT:NUM, asking how the decision came about, and whether it could be modified. But seeing that you have been the most active member there, I thought I'd ask you directly first. — Sebastian 08:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Math and law seem inherently contradictory to me. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned your leading question to Malleus here. I'm a great believer in behavioural allegations like this being backed up with evidence or retracted, so this is your chance to do one or the other, if you so wish. -- John ( talk) 13:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Arthur- I would appreciate your comments/explanation on the latest reversion you made of the rewording in the intro that I did on the Burzynski page. I don't feel the current wording accurately represents what the article that is cited actually states. The current wording makes it sound as if oncologists in general agree that Burzynski's studies as a whole are scientific nonsense, whereas the cited article explains that it's his methods which are considered sloppy, not necessarily the treatment or the results. Also, it only reflects the attitude of three doctors in particular, not oncologists as a group. Thank you, Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.177.69 ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Thanks for your comments. Just a technical remark: the lub property, as indeed all properties, continue to hold in internal set theory, since we are dealing with the usual real line. More specifically, the enrichment is at the level of the syntax (the famous unary predicate "S"), but any statement not involving the predicate is true in ZFC+IST just as it is true in ZFC. Translating this back into Robinson's framework, the lub translates into a lub property for internally bounded internal sets. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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 2009 | Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
Mhiji
01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As an administrator, perhaps you can explain to me why you can or should override the support by the Relativity Taskforce for United States gravity control propulsion research. I don't see you listed as a member. Do they give their support to random pages outside of the category of Relativity? What is their purpose if their endorsement is useless? I'm honestly confused and I ask in good faith. Thank you. xod ( talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus on one of the Talk Pages (2008 or 2009) that state leaders be included (unless there are strong arguments not to). I haven't got time to find exactly where, will check after work. It should probably be added to WP:RY. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur!
I made a page for Mathematics Made Difficult, a classic text in my opinion, but it was proposed for deletion as "not notable enough". If you also believe this is worth a reference, could you lend your support on the talk page for the article, or add more to the article itself? Thanks, LouScheffer ( talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I added today the number 14745 with the comment: 7th number with more than 1 digit that can be written from base 2 to base 18 using only the digits 0 to 9. [1] You replied: "seems a non-notable property (the end of the base list is arbitrary; does it do so in base 19? base 20?"
Well, to avoid an edit war.. I would like to answer you: - no, it stops at base 18, at base 19, it starts using letters. And adds some precision: The original idea was to find out if some numbers could be written using only digits 0 to 9, in as many consecutive bases as possible. From base 2 to base 21, or above there is no number above 9. From base 2 to base 20, there is only number above 9: 20 From base 2 to base 19, there are only 2 numbers above 9: 19 and 20. From base 2 to base 18, there are only 10 numbers above 9: 18, 19, 20, 1027, 1028, 1029, 14745, 9020076688681, 9439828025162228377 and 9439829801208141318 From base 2 to base 17 and below, there is an infinite number of such numbers.
So why bases 2 to 18? simply because for those bases, there is a finite, yet interesting number that matches the definition.
Note that a lot of numbers are listed as just "prime number" which is a very common characteristic. This characteristic of numbers, to me, is much more interesting than whether a number is prime or not, mostly because for a specific set of digits, one can find a series of bases for which the number of numbers matching that characteristic is as large as possible while staying finite.
Besides, a lot of numbers are not listed having any particular property, while I'm sure a lot of them have some unlisted property.
I request that you restore the entry at your convenience. Edit it, if you like, with some of the information given above.
Thanks in advance. Dhrm77.
I don't disagree that some of the pieces of information may seem somewhat arbitrary, but so are a lot of other information given on wikipedia. Similar series of numbers exist for: - digits 0-1 in bases 2 to 5 - digits 0-2 in bases 2 to 7 - digits 0-3 in bases 2 to 9 - digits 0-4 in bases 2 to 10 - digits 0-5 in bases 2 to 12 - digits 0-6 in bases 2 to 14 - digits 0-7 in bases 2 to 15 - digits 0-8 in bases 2 to 17 - digits 0-9 in bases 2 to 18 (listed above) - digits 0-A in bases 2 to 20 - digits 0-B in bases 2 to 21 - digits 0-C in bases 2 to 23 - digits 0-D in bases 2 to 24 - digits 0-E in bases 2 to 26 - digits 0-F in bases 2 to 27 etc... I consider it a notable property because it deals with the normal digits used in base 10, and because with those exact parameters, there are relatively few numbers that have that property. Those numbers being rare, they are notable. 14745 was the only number between 1029 and 9020076688681 with that property! The fact that YOU don't find this property notable doesn't mean someone else won't. I would suggest you don't make a judgment call based on your personal preferences. By your own standard, since I don't find "pronic numbers" of any interest, I should probably eliminate all mention of them in wikipedia... That would absurd, and contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, to bring knowledge to people. So I ask again, please revert your revert. This is only a small line in that range of numbers which is largely incomplete.
How can you say that "weather fronts", "low-pressure area", "high-pressure area", etc., are not related to Geography? Do you know that meteorology is only part of geography? -- 203.223.238.224 ( talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I've raised a concern at BLPN about the reverting. [1] SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have commented at Talk:Polytope on your reversion of another editor's citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Like me, you stepped in to revert an IP-hopping editor's repeated edits at Ahmad Zahir, as his version had not achieved any support on the talk page (nor did it seem likely to gather any support, the way he was going). Unfortunately, following your page protection request, it looks like the page is now fully protected with the IP-hopping editor's version intact. AtticusX ( talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that any film's World Premiere is a notable event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMercury39 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The honorable mention cite seemed OK, so didn't understand the deletion rationale. If it's an SPA issue, do you mind if I add it instead? -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 07:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program&diff=408608376&oldid=408586763 Please explain why my addition was removed. Also, the way you added at the end of those two movies the new text about Jessy's TV show, make it read as if his show is also fictionalized which it is clearly not. - the least you could have done was create a new sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.14.140 ( talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. as this is my first edit on wikipedia, ill go ahead and work on it, and submit a new one which i hope you will let fly. thanks for your time. for the record: I hope this is not a result of your opinion here regarding the content of the show. that would disappoint me! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LorienN (
talk •
contribs)
22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
see.. your opinions are coming out, which i think are irrelevant. this is not Facebook, but an online encyclopedia. Your edits can only be legit if they are stripped of any opinion. It makes no difference at all what you think of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series. I really do hope your further edits to my words here will not be influenced by your opinion. I think that will simply put shame on the entire existence and meaning of this grand website and source. I am still working on it, and have been reading here about the rules - doing my best to give you no reason to edit my words and be over picky with me, but rather sit back and respect their addition to the already existing information about HAARP. You can be sure, I am going to do ALL i can to make sure my addition will be 100% perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
ok here is what i have come up with. please let me know if this can fly. if not, please let me know why. please be detailed in your comments. please note that I have used the every word for my addition directly from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_with_Jesse_Ventura - so there can be no copyright issues you mentioned.
"In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura (December 2, 2009), the former Navy UDT, and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, visits HAARP to uncover the truth behind rumors that it is being used as a weather modification weapon, an instrument for mind control, or both."
thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think you have stripped way too much out of it, but to be able to move on, how about this as a compromise:
will that work? i honestly see why not. the few words about his background are incredibly relevant here. there is nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I give up. thanks for proving my point Arthur Rubin. Your entire response here so very much fits your profile and background its actually sad. enjoy the power while it lasts. i hope you are happy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, concerning your edit in here, I think you should have a look at this page. However, your decision as an admin is fully respected. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What part of the text you reverted on Jan 19 2011 is original research? The text is incomplete in the sense that there are no citations yet, but everything stated in it is considered "common knowledge" among mathematicians. The only original thing in it is the wording. Lapasotka ( talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please be more precise. I agree that sources need to be stated (which I was going to do), but now the reason for the removal seems to be NPOV-based. Here are the sentences which have a hint of POV:
I think these parts should be edited to find a consensus instead of wiping out the whole section.The geometric depiction of addition and multiplication and the axioms of real numbers are standard, but they need a reference. I believe the geometric proofs fall into the class of Routine calculations with respect to the original research. Is there something else you disagree with regarding NOR? Lapasotka ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change them and figure out about subarticles. This is the first MAJOR page I have touched, mostly on the grounds that it is quite useless for general audience being too snobbish without any Elementary description. (Real numbers is the unique complete archimedean ordered field. How about that?) Do you think the section itself should be there in some reduced form? Lapasotka ( talk) 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, you should have added a splitting proposition instead of reverting the section on these grounds. Lapasotka ( talk) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
As you are aware, the deletion of this category was undertaken in anticipation of the deletion of Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories. The result of that discussion was Rename. I request that you reverse your changes, and implement the outcome of the CFD discussion. JQ ( talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, it seems like you haven't been able to do anything truly productive with yourself since winning the Putnam, and 'm sorry to hear about your wife's state of health. Please discontinue with your biased policing of my contributions. The UUe Trust (and the MAGICampaign for that matter) is real and cited. If it happens again, you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Listen to what you're saying, "Even if real, you have provided no evidence of notability."... You're behaving as if you know the law, which you do not. I'm sure the IRS has familiarity with trust laws. For you to edit this page is a knock against your credibility. You also made changes that were sweeping on the 'computational mathematics' page. Having a TLD does not make an institution official or notable. The converse is true, too. Be smart, dude! Rajpaj ( talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You have external links, but somehow the link to the permaculture forums, which had been there for years (I think), was removed. This is the largest permaculture site on the internet. How is it that this link would be repeatedly removed? How is it that it was removed in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.143.161 ( talk) 02:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you say why you removed the section on the Hide/Seek controversy from the Smithsonian page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.90.176 ( talk) 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi recommended I ask you for help. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you reacted with such an unexplained flurry of tags to Fish School Search. However, looking more closely I'm inclined to think it should perhaps be removed, at least for now. The authors claimed it was submitted to appear in the Swarm Intelligence Journal in 2010, but it hasn't appeared to date. Moreover, there are no citations sofar for the current publications. However, if this position changes, then I think the entry should be reinstated. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and don't quite understand why you removed my edits to the Capturing the Friedmans page. Can you please explain? Thanks. -- Cediwiki ( talk) 00:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this page should be speedily deleted for the reasons I mentioned. Anything you do to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletefeader ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist. [2] -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 01:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "post–Kyoto Protocol" takes an en dash just as "post–World War II" does. Please read WP:ENDASH. — kwami ( talk) 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems you have added a message to my page regarding an edit war. I am putting up useful sources re: Amway's business models and there seems to be a cartel of Amway staff taking them down. You can't argue with the truth of the matter. Amway IS a Ponzi scheme. Dr Asha Joliet ( talk) 22:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Please consider reverting edits today by an anonymous user to the article Income tax in the United States. Capitalization of the word "Federal" was in accordance with usage in 26 USC. Change to section heading makes part of the heading redundant with the article title. Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Your 3RR warning is unfounded, as it is you who have made three reversions now of the same material. I find your template message on my talk page to be offensive and unnecessary and I request that you withdraw it. If you have something to say to me, say it plainly instead of hiding behind template messages. As I have stated, I find your changes to be incorrect for the reasons stated in my edit summaries. If you're going to reply here, notify me by placing the {{ talkback}} template on my talkpage; otherwise, pleas reply on my talk page. — KV5 • Talk • 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You might find the Binary Mole (No = 279) interesting as you commented in 2008 that a power of 2 seemed appropriate in the case of Avogadro's number/constant. I tried to put a reference to the Binary Mole on the Avogadro's Constant article page, but it was deleted by Materialscientist who wrote "Undid revision 412257292 by SciMann (WP:OR - needs much better referencing, formatting and placement in the article". This is/was not original research or publishing of the issue, this proposed definition of the mole is not experimentally verifiable, the only places that it exists (mine or references to mine) were given, and the formating already in the Avogadro's Constant article page was used. My placement at the end of the introductory was obviously a problem for this person as it clearly pointed to an alternate view that differed from that currently accepted. I was subsequently told that my insert violated the self-citing rule. I have added it for the moment to the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avogadro_constant. SciMann ( talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC) User:SciMann (talk)
Just wanted to understand why you reverted the external link added to Humanitarian Logistics? Specifically, the HLA professional association that offers certification and training. Perhaps this would better be presented by adding a Section on Education and Training to the article, then include the External Reference?
Forgive me as I am new here and still learning the rules. Thanks in advance for your reply. Martin.A.Bush ( talk) 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A friend of mine User:Heinleinscat was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry he did not commit. (He lives at a college where he edits from a computer lab. What's the recourse there? BCLH ( talk) 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Thanks for your interest in adequal. I thought we try in general to avoid redirects. What is the reason for your edits? Tkuvho ( talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hum... [3]...see the associated talkpage please.-- MONGO 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Particle accelerator mishap may be unsourced but I've seen concerns in the newspaper regarding micro black holes and strangelets voiced by serious people about the Large Hadron Collider. Unless the content is obviously hair brained, which this one is not, serious editors have the right to require an edit summary and/or consensus for removal of content by anons. I consider myself a responsible editor when checking my watchlist and rc. I double check, go back in the article history before and after my revert and sometimes catch and revert my own mistakes, etc etc. I don't use automatic tools other than rollback. I take it slow. Each anon edit is a case by case basis judgement call. I've seen experienced editors, including admins incorrectly restoring content that was removed without explanation by anons just because all they could see in Huggle is: content remove without summary = vandalism = revert. I'm more careful than that. Unless the content is obvious nonsense I may, at my discretion require that an edit summary be provided for removal of content. Slight Smile 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You have deleted my contribution without explanation. As a new contributor, I would be grateful for some hints to help improve my offerings. Paul Hield ( talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are quite right that it would no doubt be easy to find many text books outlining the argument deployed that taxation lowers wages and profits, but as I am trying to point out, the argument is incomplete because it only goes as far as removing money from an economy and does not take into account the most likely situation where the same money is spent again by government in which case the same argument (with which you take no issue) would have opposite consequences. The argument running in either direction is a matter of applying very simple logic to a set of idealised assumptions, not a matter of substantiated empirical research. The true consequences of taxation are much more subtle and difficult to discern and would indeed merit a whole host of references to sources. Therefore I believe that your removal of my contribution should be reversed, I shall do so forthwith.
Arthur, I have started a new section in Tax Talk, I would welcome your views on how to improve this section.
Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield ( talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have created the article Thomas W. Hungerford. I will be adding material to it in the coming weeks, especially notability references. You may restore the links to this article if you wish.-- Foobarnix ( talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Is Untalker Hewitt, do you think, or one of his students, i.e. one of the people not allowed to edit the article per ArbCom? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment on Talk:Amazon Rainforest, please. 99.56.121.41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.83.114 ( talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. What we have there is an editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia but is a professional and is trying to be cooperative -- see User talk:Camburns. So far his experience of Wikipedia has been very discouraging, unfortunately. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 18:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have encountered a publication being sold for $65 that contains content apparently all from Wikipedia. This sort of this tends to discourage editors like me. See User talk:Oldtaxguy#Pirating of Wikipedia content for profit. Can we do anything? Oldtaxguy ( talk) 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One person is not a consensus, bright boy. It makes no sense to cram an theoretically infinitely large list into a slightly less theoretically infinite list. If you wish to get a third opinion, go do so, but try not to unnecessarily remove content from Wikipedia. There are several entries on the list of irrational numbers that are not in the list of numbers. Please do not destroy this information so recklessly. Hope you have a nice day! LutherVinci ( talk) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, I've lost track of the plot. Is this user trolling or is there a language barrier? Perhaps a little bit of both? Semi-protection might help, no? Viriditas ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice that you're well on your way to an edit war regarding whether "United States" should be linkified on the article I mention above. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policy at Wikipedia:Linking#What generally should not be linked. -- AdamRoach ( talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems you have reverted my edit on Low-carbon economy ( discussion). Revision as of 12:34, 27 February 2011
The article did not contain any reference of decarbonisation, which can be a long-term process of a low carbon economy to a non-carbon economy or to a clean technology economy.
Please explain why you removed: "A low carbon economy can be an economy that is in the process of decarbonisation" ?
— RW Marloe ( talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:ITCZ ? 166.137.142.40 ( talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Has suddenly appeared - I doubt he is a "new user" (using "again" in an edit summary!) on the Charles Koch article. Collect ( talk) 13:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, regarding this edit of yours I would like to inform you about WP:FOOTERS. With your edit you move interwikis away from other interwikis and above categories. The correct order is Defaultsort -> Categories -> Stub templates -> Interlanguage links. If you have questions on th manual of style please contact me. Wikipedia makes an effort to have interwikis (including those marked with Fa which means "featured article") together in order to be easily detected by interwiki bots and updated regulatory. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, we've had some discussions (and occasional disagreements) over neutrality of some content. My apologies if you're busy--if the "involuntary vacation" tag still holds, feel free to pass the football to someone else. I've recently come across several posts and edits that, in my opinion, are heavily promotional--either advertising or propaganda--and need not merely a correction, but some kind of an independent guiding hand to temper the reaction of the most frequent posters. One is the ACTA page where J.V. Martin has been largely removing all information critical of the organization, whether supported or not. Martin appears to be a person vested in the organization (irrespectively of his name similarity to the organization's founder, J.L. Martin) and has added several rounds of "corrections" based entirely on organization's promotional literature. I don't want to engage in edit war with him because 1) I don't believe it is productive and 2) I've observed the organization in action, including interactions between ACTA, NAS and the Federalist Society, first-hand and thus might be tainted by "original research". Note, in particular, that Stephen Balch, who is on the board of ACTA, is the founder and long-term president of the NAS. Conversely, J.L. Martin used to be a frequent presenter and panelist at NAS meetings. Both organizations have clear ideological bias that they try to hide with self-promotional platitudes. ACTA publications have been routinely cited for lack of methodological cohesion or even complete failure of methodology--e.g., Defending Civilization was little more than a cherry-picked collection of isolated, decontextualized quotations, set in an inflammatory framework.
My second observation involved the article on Grimsby Traditional Smoked Fish and several other articles where its author added a paragraph or two linking back to GTSF. The article reads like barely edited promotional brochure. It's not even a question of bias--it's a desire to sell the product. The only "external references" are to members of the Grimsby coop and the sole "news" article might have been placed advertisement as well (it's not entirely clear). I added some corrections in "Smoked Fish", followed by further corrections by others, but the main source remains largely untouched.
Again, my apologies if I am disrupting your regular activities. I hope your wife is better and you have time to help on this.
Please feel free to remove this post if you find it unhelpful. Alex.deWitte ( talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your wife's surgery. I hope she's better. I actually am new to this and promise to cite every comment I make about this family. I'm still trying to figure out how to add footnotes. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrantsalot ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You have some discussion at err... an article called " SATAN RITUAL ABUSE" (strange title huh?) 173.183.79.81 ( talk) 04:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur, would you please help me and in so doing help clarify the article. The latest edit which I added was simply to clarify that the tax taken was sum of the losses suffered by each part of the economy impacted by the tax. This is the point made in the second paragraph where the example of how a $0.50 tax is shared between the supplier and the buyer, the buyer pays an extra $0.20 and the seller loses $0.30, the sum being equal to the $0.50 tax imposed.
To allow the example but delete my edit, where I state that the sum of the losses is equal to the tax taken, appears to be inconsistent as, so far as I can tell, they make the same point.
I think your objection to my edit is that taxation causes greater loss in the economy than simply the sum of the losses as a direct result of the tax. I'm just guessing here so I may be quite wrong and be missing some other fundamental point.
Kind regards - Paul Paul Hield ( talk) 06:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur -- I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so here are two more references, with video, of David Koch's organization Americans For Prosperity explaining to Koch himself how they've been organizing the Tea Party movement:
DeMelle, Brandon (October 13, 2010). "Koch brothers' Tea Party connections confirmed". Grist. Retrieved March 10, 2011.
Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 13, 2010). "Tea Party movement: Billionaire Koch brothers who helped it grow". The Guardian. Retrieved March 10, 2011.
(here's another ref)
I hope you'll agree that's sufficient to restore my edit, with those refs. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In an interview, Robert Eastlund, the son of the HAARP technology inventor Bernard Eastland said his father intended HAARP to be used as a defense technology and to control weather in arrid places like Ethiopia to ensure a healthy environment. exact link of time mark 24:29 interview segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Arthur: When you get a chance, can you please respond to the following post? [4] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The same day I find two articles on this 2011 End Times thing, I find someone has created Alternative archaeology and tried to redirect Pseudoarchaeology to it. Dougweller ( talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"
Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker, aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.
Furthermore, the second paragraph was sourced through the waybackmachine, it was not a blog entry.
Therefore, i'm undoing your deletion. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page. 200.67.138.7 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) edit: sorry, it looked like i was logged in but clearly i wasn't. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived, and the article still states "unreliable sources". I modified the article to reflect that on one link the journalist himself is stating that he was the fake engineer. I just wondered if the "unrealiable source" has to stay there indefinetly, if i need to bring other sources claiming the expertise of Attivissimo in the hoax debunking field, or what needs to be done... thanks in advance.
p.s.
hope everything's fine with your wife, and good luck!
Idonthavetimeforthiscarp
16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I’ll try Due to the very nature of conspiracy theories movements, though, the vast majority of stuff I have is from blogs or websites, since the conspiracy world has found a fertile terrain in the internet. No debates, no proof needed, etc. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem to be a major watcher/whitewasher of conservative articles, please explain this one:
The Koch name is all over that article, as founders, funders, board members, etc. Some of that applies to many of the other articles which were reverted. You admit to having a COI because of your own political POV, and maybe everyone does in their own ways, but it shouldn't cause you to remove information that is well documented. That's unwikipedian. Should we create a subcategory for the Koch family category that can include the numerous articles on subjects which the Koch family are heavily invested, control, or fund? Please provide a solution as a sign of good will. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, I wonder if you'd weigh in on a similar debate at SPLC where an editor claims that a source is reliable because it has been reported by another source which is reliable. ( previous & related thread). Though I'm still not convinced this argument wholly applies to the Koch Ind./Greenpeace context, it seems that another editor is making the same argument which you assumed I was making. Respectfully, - PrBeacon (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Within your response to my comment on Original Research at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics, you said "The problem is that an allowable rephrasing in most fields becomes OR in mathematics, as even a change in notation does not fall in the 'routine arithmetic calculation' exemption in Principles 11.". I have not been able to figure out to what you were referring when you said "Principles 11". Please explain it or give a link. Thank you. JRSpriggs ( talk) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be having an edit war with an anonymous IP on this article. Stop reverting and discuss please. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at a post you made a few years ago here. I'm not sure I follow what you mean about the 'products' if you want to call them that, working out differently depending on whether you treat them as real numbers or as rationals. I'd appreciate your time at the talk page in question to help me hammer out your meaning before I begin to merge the articles. Thanks, Cliff ( talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is it really necessary? Since the claim passes WP:V and multiple reliable sources describe LP as third largest, I think this phrasing is unnecessary. Thoughts? -- GalupK ( talk) 09:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand your point. How about adding some latest sources? I've found some latest (2010-2011) sources:
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
IPv6. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I tried to stop it by commenting on the talk page, but you did not stop reverting. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Shrenujparekh ( talk) i need genuine help..it seems that my facts/misc/info is misunderstood/interpreted in a wrong way i have written an article stating a new type of mean{releted to maths}(anti geomtric mean and anti-harmonic mean)
(don't hesitate to read plz)
who AM I? i am Shrenuj Parekh,india,mumbai.i am a small kid aged 17 years old. i love mathematics and aim to be a contributor(in terms of articles,innovations,inventions,formula's,etc.)in the field of Maths.
History of wiki contributed articles: i created an article on "anti geometric and anti harmonic mean"(a month back around) it was deleted reason(UNSOURCED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) SOURCE WAS MY BRAIN..............how could i ever link it with an external link?
i had gone a study tour in some town are(via college cause club).........so could not edit the page within 7 days and my article got deleted
a solution was sort by me.i wrote an article on my website relating to the same(aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com)....dated 0ct 16
. . . i decided to write the article again with an external link........... the twist in my story.........my blog has been shifted to (aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com(does not exist as of now)) TO (picturequizquestions.blogspot.com).for better traffic
WHAT DO I WANT?
my page is facing a chance of deletion.plz follow the link below to know more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_71#Anti-geometric_mean_and_anti-harmonic_mean_needs_rescuing
copyright issue{*don't tell this to anyone*} i am a 17 year old who likes to show off!!(just like any other teenage boy...) so in an attempt to impress peers i wrote"COPYRIGHT SHRENUJ 2010".........FOR MERE SHOW off and to impress friends...........i have no copyright,in short........
I re-reverted, because your edit made no sense to me: to me it seems obvious that the base-10 logarithm is exactly what is meant there. Please take a look, and if you're still convinced my edit was wrong, we can try to figure out why we disagree.
Thanks,
—
Ruakh
TALK
02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Arthur, I see you seem to have a bit of a problem with my edits or with me personally, as you seem to be following EVERY edit I make, even if legitimate and are referenced, such as the edit in 2052. There are dozens of articles which read similar to that of Georges Roux (Assyriologist), but I don't see you or anyone else persistently editing them or reverting edits which are referenced, so I can only assume that this problem is with me. I would appreciate feedback or thoughts, as any edits I make are referenced. — Preceding xRiamux — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRiamux ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Colony (U.S. season 2). Users who
edit disruptively or refuse to
collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus ( talk • contribs) 18:07, February 2, 2011
Regarding this edit, Dr. Joe Gallian, who runs the Univ. of Minnesota Duluth REU program maintains a webpage called "Putnam Fellows Career Path" ( http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) where he has updates on where past Putnam fellows are today (including their achievements and such). The database listed your "Professional Appointment" as "Financial adviser (2005)". I was assuming he obtained this information by contacting you directly, but I guess I was wrong. Based on your LinkedIn profile, I have updated your Wikipedia entry to include positions in industry which you've held in the past. I also included this list on Dr. Gallian's "Putnam Fellows Career Path" ( http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) Mozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please could you comment on the veracity of the claims made in the new entry about Jacob Barnett ? You are a mathematician and an ex-child prodigy so your input on this issue would carry a lot of weight.-- Mozart20d ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, why do you think/know those IP Users are the same person? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Might I ask why? 212.68.15.66 ( talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
When you get a chance, can you please respond to this? [5] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin, Would you be disturbed if I changed the title of the section Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles to Talk:Tetration#Merger proposal. Since that is where the merge is being discussed, I think it is worthwhile. Awaiting your answer, Cliff ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Could I send you a brief email about an admin-related topic which would benefit from discretion? My email is listed on the top of my talk page. Thanks, Ocaasi c 08:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I took the liberty of changing the typestyle in your !vote so your meaning was clear for those who speed read. Please look at my change and revert if you don’t concur. Greg L ( talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Maybe if you had taken a read of the last comment made by me, on the Talk:2010 article you would know that I stopped and apologised. Maybe if you saw the latest 2010 article history, you would know that I let Julia Gillard be removed. I did not abuse 3RR. You could have told me nicely that what I was doing was wrong, instead of making me look 'foolish'. I had the facts; they werent taken too well on the talk page. So I said I wouldn't continue. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." -- I may be a little thick headed for a 14 year old, but when I know I am wrong, I'll apologise and admit it. With all due respect in this case I don't feel that I am in the wrong. If you notice, you'll see I performed 3 reverts, not 4. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please discuss the relavent reverts made to Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 with 99.112.214.205 ( talk · contribs) rather than continuing the dispute over minor wording issues. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Greetings Arthur,
Firstly, I would like to express my regret at the confrontational disagreements you and I have recently had over various mathematics pages. I decided to join Wikipedia, not for the purposes of seeking arguments, but to contribute to and improve this encyclopedia, and I am enthusiastic about doing so.
Having said that, your last message to me contained some material which I feel obliged to respond to. And since the editing itself has stopped, taking the matter here seemed more appropriate. In your last message to me you said,
As you well know, course notes are not considered a reliable source; and the reals form a topological group, so an → x is equivalent to an − x → 0, and the statement generalized becomes 1/n → 0, which seems simpler than x + 1/n → x. But that is trivia. I'm just pointing out that your latest change is a style change, rather than a substantive change.
First of all, I have to say that I resent your tone. Although I have lurked and read articles here for some time, I have only recently begun to edit, and so as a matter of fact I did not 'well know' anything about course notes with regard to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I was providing information in good faith, in order to persuade you, through rational argument, of something which you seemed to be denying. Furthermore, the material I provided did contain a proof, and I am sure that you have the mathematical ability to evaluate it and judge its validity! Incidentally, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out where exactly course notes are mentioned on the page you linked to me. (I'm not saying they're not there, but it's a big page with a lot of information and I'd be grateful if you could thus be more specific.)
Finally, I must just point out that if my latest change is nothing more than a stylistic change, then so was yours when you changed what I had originally put in the first place, (in the process falsely accusing me of having made a serious error.) Telanian183 ( talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
But the material that I added to the page was correct, so what's your point? Telanian183 ( talk) 20:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not kidding :). I can't access the source, but others seem to agree: [6] and [7], for what they're worth. That's one way to screw up your needle. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Upon second glance, I think you removed the dab for vinyl and left the chocolate part. I'm confused. Anyway, I undid it and added refs to support the chocolate record. (This has been a very strange 2 minutes.) Revert me if I am wrong. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had a reason to mark this [8] as a minor edit. Removing content is described as an example of when not to mark an edit as minor. Thanks. Shootbamboo ( talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
GFHandel . 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, just dropping by to let you know I removed some of your tagging on Aboud El Zomor. In my assessment, the article was not eligible for CSD A7 (even the old version) because a claim that he was a participant in the successful assassination of a head of state indicates why the subject is important, and therefor the article survives criteria A7. I mostly agree with the remaining tags you placed, however I have now removed them after improving the article. Feel free to bring the article to AfD if you still think it needs to be deleted after the changes. Monty 845 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Whittemore Peterson Institute . Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Byanose ( talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I was going to create an artical for every decade of the 22nd Century, to me it seemed silly to stop at the 2110's as every century before it goes from begining to end, I agree to go into the 23rd Century would be rediculous, but why stop 1/5 of the way through, what if I combined decades such as 2140s/2150s 2160s/2170s 2180s/2190s, would that be acceptable, please give me an answer.
- user talk:Phoenix500 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Now I have reverted the 2120s artical back into existeence, before you delete my contributions, please consult with me and maybe we can compromise. User:Phoenix500 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC).
I will however assure you that i will not bring back the 2130s artical until our agreement has been reached, we will not editwar.- (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (PDT)
Hey Arthur Rubin,
I'm new to wikipedia, so bear with me. Today you undid an earlier edit of mine. In the comments section you said that it "introduces a statement not supported by the sources." But my edit was simple a stylistic one. The original sentence read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund some organizations within the American Tea Party movement." I changed it to read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund the American Tea Party movement." Any help or guidance you can give me to understand the problem will be much appreciated. Thanks. Churchillreader ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I now have an idea of what I can and can not create, I am new at this, I have improved some articals, and apparently screwed up on most of them, that is why I had a friend of mine delete some of my articals, but a few I am willing to try to fix, out of all my articals I feel these decade articals I am having the most success with, as I am researching off this website as well as on, I will go no further than the 2190s, all I request is give me the chance to reach my goal first before you revert them. After these few decades of the future I will move to the past, as our website offers only as far back as the 1690s BC, I will aim for 2490s BC but this will take several months, let these few future decades be my test before I waste my time on 1000 years that will be deleted no matter what.
user talk:Phoenix500 18:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed up to the 2190s, alll years 2120-2199 have been redirected to their proper decade, I understand your concern about redoing the template to aquire remaining decades, if you can contact someone to do just that, the rest of the work will already be done for them, you just give mt the heads up when I can start going back in time before the 1690s BC, at my user talk page Phoenix500 - 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC).
Hi there. You nominated this article for deletion back in 2008. The discussion ended in 'no consensus', but I agree with you that the subject is non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
62 (number). Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley Hudson ( talk • contribs) 14:36, April 27, 2011
Hi, could you please explain to me what the anchor you added to this article does and why you put it in? I read the template page, but, unfortunately, I don't get it. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
anchor|UK super-injunctions|UK superinjunction|UK super-injunction}}
allows
Injunction#UK super-injunctions,
Injunction#UK superinjunction, and
Injunction#UK super-injunction to link to the same place as
Injunction#UK superinjunctions. As there were already some redirects pointing to the hyphenated form, I thought it better to add the anchor than to modify the links. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Please reference your claims and assertions on the talk page when you make them. Your signal to noise level has been rather low, you simply make to many recollection errors, and statements that contradict the basic facts of the case. Do please check first if your recollections are correct - instead of blindly opposing V's comments, which is the impression that is left when your assertions turn out to be incorrect. I too find his general agressive attitude problematic as well - but i can't fault him for not backing up his statements with reliable sources. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
THE ARTİCLES ARMENİAN MOVİNG AND ARMENİAN ROOTS WROTE ON REAL FACTS AND EVENTS.AND THIS TEXT IS FROM THE FAMOUS SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan from Karabakh ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur,
Back from a long break, and it looks like as usual, shenanigans are occurring. Any ideas on how to get 99.X to become a useful member of the community? I would start by saying that they need to:
I think we collectively have no time for this brand of distraction, and either 99.X shapes up, or we need to find a way to get him/her to stop wasting everyone's time.
Anyway, I won't be on all that often, but at least you know that someone whose viewpoint on the issue at hand lies opposite yours is irritated as well, and hopes that it is possible solve the distraction without too much effort.
(Aside: to this, you are, in fact, a mathematician, which is quite different... though honestly I often wish I knew more applied math for numerical solutions.)
Awickert ( talk) 08:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur,
Please, you stated here [9] that " all references which claim mathematical value are by B, and note that it doesn't have mathematical value". I think I am missing something! About value, I am not an expert, but are you sure about the references who are by B. (you mean a single fellow, I guess) ?? did you verify the 29 references I collected here [10], and which were the most numerous for the pages I investigated ?? Thank you for correcting any mistake I could have done on this item. Rirunmot ( talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What is your opinion?? should you need more data?? Rirunmot ( talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dear Arthur,
As busy as you seem, your opinion will be a valuable one at [ [13]] thanks-- Rirunmot ( talk) 13:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope being a murder suspect isn't a ploy to bolster your intimidation points as an administrator. ;) 155.99.230.134 ( talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you contributed to page Fraction (mathematics), linked from page I edit: Whole number. I have made a reasonable article, with many references, but my edits are reverted and they say that my actions are vandalism!!!! Now they threat to block me. I don't know what to do!!!! This is sick. Max Longint ( talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Public opinion on climate change. 99.35.13.248 ( talk) 05:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
You removed an image I posted (cover of Canticle for Leibowitz) to the article on Science Fiction. I can understand the rationale behind it, I suppose - not fair use because the article is not about that novel - but what I don't understand is how the other two images in that section - covers of The Left Hand of Darkness and Neuromancer are in fact permitted to be there, since that rationale would seem to apply to them as well. I'd also be curious to hear why the in-text reference to Canticle was superfluous enough to be deleted; it seems like a fairly canonical novel for the subgenre. I'm relatively new to this, so any information you can offer would be helpful. Thanks! Sindinero ( talk) 03:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, you said at the Climategate page 'For conspiracies, I accept that the some sources support conspiracy theory, and few (if any) contradict it.' This is wrong.
1) If you look at V's sources [14] he has provided only one, Information World Review, that actually uses the loaded term, 'conspiracy theory'. All of his others use 'conspiracy' without a 'theory' straight after it, i.e. in the sense of 'allegations of a conspiracy'. I would then ask is an IT magazine, IWR, a reliable source in any case?
2) Even if it is, the fact that 'conspiracy theory' is largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning it is, therefore, a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and reliably sourced or otherwise, it must be attributed, per NPOV.
What am I missing here? Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don’t know if you remember the whole affair about the reliability of an English/Italian journalist regarding the article “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”
I was citing Paolo Attivissimo, an English/Italian journalist, as a source for investigations on this group, and there was a dispute on the reliability of said journalist.
You were asking for some source which could be compared to the Skeptical Inquirer, so here’s what I have:
He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688
Again, the Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:
http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html
(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )
He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:
http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1
And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1
He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)
He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo
He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/
So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. Thank you, and good travelling. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I recently asked Viritidas, Alex Harvey, and Pete Tillman to consider taking a fortnight off the CRU email controversy article, as tensions might have built up a bit too much recently. SBHB has also agreed to take two weeks off the article; I was wondering if you might do the same. Regards, NW ( Talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your latest tagging of "Nine independent committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings", I am once again at a complete loss trying to understand why you say this statement "failed verification" and is "disputed". As both an administrator and a mathematician, I assume you are familiar with WP:CALC. The source describes eight separate inquiries and the source itself is the ninth probe, this one by the Commerce Department Inspector General, which is covered in spades by secondary news sources. [15] How does 8 + 1 = 9 fail verification or represent a dispute? Is there a good reason you added these maintenance tags? Please remove them. Viriditas ( talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You have used the wrong warning on my talk page, clearly. 88.109.29.126 ( talk) 13:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
see Reinhart and Rogoff (2008), Reinhart and Sbrancia (2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghileman ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This article lists the inflation tax, so it seems appropriate to also list the related financial repression tax. For a discussion of why financial repression constitutes a form of taxation please page 143 of Reinhart's and Rogoff's (2008) This Time is Different. Ghileman ( talk) 15:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've never got excited about the whole "barnstar" concept, but I just want to acknowledge your good work defending List of numbers amidst the recent editing chaos. Jowa fan ( talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
hi, I disagree with you removing my original photos from several pages. I think that they nit nay comply with the terms of use, but they provide an accurate view of the subjects. Thanks --The Educated 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 ( talk • contribs)
Hi Arthur,
Since you are an admin, I thought I would ask if you could protect a BLP from persistent vandalism. It is the Rick Santorum BLP, which is understandably under attack since he is a Republican presidential candidate. An outspoken political activist, Dan Savage mounted a campaign a while ago to coin a new crude definition for 'santorum.' IPs have persistently been trying to put that crude definition into the article through various means. I don't have a problem with established users arguing that the content should be in the article, but I do with the drive-by IPs. Thanks for your consideration. Drrll ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Any clue why the IP came to my page to whine about you? I've never edited that article before, at least, I don't think so, since it's not on my watchlist. Don't think I've run across the IP either. Should I kick your ass or something? Warn you? Do a dance? Bring you a cup of coffee? I'll challenge you to duel, how about that? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What's up with the reverts? Will Beback talk 08:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
[19]? Will Beback talk 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your revert, followed by a revert of the revert. It is fine by me to undo my edits if you disagree. I am fairly used to it lately :), I won't take it personally. Thenub314 ( talk) 02:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [23] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks -- Techala ( talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin,
I saw that your removed my section abouta blog about the ICD. I am aware that the section strictly speaking was not in line with Wikipedia policies so I won't argue that it should be undone. However I put it there because the article itself, which was started by someone at the ICD, is full of references to their own website, and because most of what is out there about the ICD likewise seems to refer back to themselves. The truth is, I only ever heard of them because of receiving some very efficient spam which targets university addresses and which is quite difficult to block. Googling them, it seems that spamming is in fact a very deliberate strategy that involves over 70 interns, and I'd like to unveil that. In any case, I get your point.
In a different vein, I think that the references section of that article could be improved, as it is not clear from the references exactly what they refer to: to their website, or to other sources. I'd like to change that, but since I did not start the article I want to be sure that I am not messing up someone else's work that has already been approved. Do you have any suggestions of what I might do? Best SkaraB 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you are a member of WikiProject Mathematics and you are the first one who commented on this deletion, could you please comment here, thank you. ■ MMXX talk 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, do you mind explaining to me in simple English how the world's wealth was able to increase so much over the past two centuries. Also, will the enormous wealth of today be maintained? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [24] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks -- Techala ( talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, you once again performed a tag team revert on Climatic Research Unit email controversy without acknowledging or responding to discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary, consisting of concur with Tillman. The quote is excessive; if you feel it's relevant, please summarize does not even touch upon the points raised in that discussion. Furthermore, how can you summarize a quote? Your edit summary (and rationale for reverting) is nonsensical. Please consider this the last warning and do not do this again. Use the talk page to discuss your edits, not the edit summary. So far, you have not responded to that discussion at all. Viriditas ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, please take a moment out of your busy day to count the number of reverts you've made to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy since January 1, 2011 and then compare it with the number I've made. I count somewhere on the order of 17 reverts from you. On the other hand, I've made a little over 10. Viriditas ( talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur - I just added a post to the existing AN/I thread that Viriditas started providing some diffs and asking for people to comment on his behavior. I figured I would let you know, since you also seem to have had some problematic contact with him. I know it would normally be more fitting as a WQA post but WQA asks you not to post if there's a thread elsewhere already dealing with the same issues. I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution processes in general, but am hoping that getting a few additional outside editors commenting will yield productive resolution. Since you have had prior contact with him, I'd appreciate it if you could chime in with your thoughts on the ANI thread. Kevin ( talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: User_talk:Tillman#June_2011: Arthur, as an administrator, you should know better than to restore the name of an editor to a talk page heading after that editor has objected to its placement per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA. If you aren't willing to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your role as an administrator, you may want to contact a steward. I can understand that you must feel tired and stressed from the demands and responsibilities, but your recent actions and comments have me concerned. In addition to restoring personal attacks, it troubles me to see you admit that you can't write from a NPOV. [25] Please make an effort to incorporate the policies and guidelines into your role as an administrator and uphold them, even if you don't believe them. Viriditas ( talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You originally unlinked neo- isolationist with a comment that "Mead's definition is clearly different than ours. The alterative is note that Mead is clearly wrong." Only after the link was restored by Will Beback did you add the {{ disputed}} template, specifically to the linked word. Under the principle that neo- is not without meaning, and noting that the isolationism article has no discussion of either neo-isolationism or the United States, I then repointed the link to the neo-isolationist section of the grand strategy article. This section has a definition which seems to correspond exactly to the description of Paul's position, without any mention of abandoning or curtailing international trade. Since this seemed to remove the original reason for adding the tag at that location, I'm hard pressed to find a reason "the tag shouldn't have been removed". Fat&Happy ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I'm currently involved in what is unfortunately looking more and more like an edit war with an IP editor on the Shinji Ikari article. The problem is over the inclusion of Category, specifically Category:Fictional bisexuals. Before I removed the Category, I did some research and looked at both when it was added and if it had been discussed on the talk page. From what I can see, there was no consensus to add the Category and that there are no sources provided to back it up. Since this is quickly descending into edit warring(Or may already have), I wanted some advice as to what to do next. Normally I would try to talk to the user, but since it's an IP that doesn't have any history beyond these edits and is trying to use livejournal and youtube as reliable sources, I don't know how to try to talk to them. Should I request mediation? The article is quite small and I don't see a lot of edit activity. If you could give me some advice as to not make this worse, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. -- Tarage ( talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you have had your hands full with IP jumper 99. This person has used no fewer than a dozen different IP's that I have noticed. Arzel ( talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Why should you be looking for work? I know plenty of pharmaceutical companies that would pay you for the work you are doing on the Burzynski page of Wikipedia.
Have you seen the Burzynski movie? Are you able to watch it? it's currently free to watch on www.burzynskimovie.com until the 20th June.
It's hard not knowing all the rules around editing but i am currently studying them to be able to update the page with informative, factual evidence and i would like to work with you in this. If you are itching to remove/undo a future edit on the Burzynski page, please think twice, and ensure you are editing according to the rules. I can see below you have reactively edited and then agreed that another, less severe course of action was probably more warranted.
People that are dying and have been given a short amount of time to live, are trying to get information on this subject. All i am asking is that you follow the principles of Wikipedia in your future edits on the Burzynski page.
One day someone you love, or perhaps even yourself, will get cancer. I'm sure you will think about this differently then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.109 ( talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
For what reason are you disrupting the Transcendent Man film article with blanket reverts, removal of an image, and deletion of a list of people who appear in the film? So far, your edit summaries do not support your edits. Please make use of the article talk page to explain your edits. Viriditas ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, just thought I'd inform you that you've blocked this IP user, but not put a template on his page informing him of it and what he can do to appeal it. That Ole Cheesy Dude ( Talk to the hand!) 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, HELP! As a result of a recent edit by another editor to a page I watch, links to the Code of Federal Regulations were changed to the form 26 CFR xx using AWB. This {{}} tool does not link to current regs. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. I'm not sure how the tool links or how to fix it, but it needs fixing if it is to continue to be used. Thanks for your help. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My talkpage is getting swarmed by IP voices of recognition and complaints for editing an article on environmental migrants. This is to let you know that at least one such user has complained about your removal of repetitive usertalk messages about editing sustanability articles. Although you might not take their concerns seriously or perhaps consider them to be trolling, I tend to consider concerns of any Wikipedia editor seriously regardless of their POV or involvement in editing disputes. Also, I am not asking that you remove any comments from my talkpage, as I still consider them legitimate issues. If you wish, you may respond here rather than on my talkpage, and we could start to resolve the dispute between your editing style and the concerns of certain IP editors. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 01:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The IP jumper has violated a 1RR here. Not sure how to handle this persons editing on articles like this. However, you seem to have some experience dealing with them as well. Arzel ( talk) 02:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Four different editors have of late removed the conspiracy links from this template. I strongly encourage you to cease adding these links to this template. If you are not satisfied, you well know WP:DR. Please follow it. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur...in April I awarded you a Defender of Wiki barnstar for your 9/11 article related work, and I stand by that decision. We may not always agree, but I hold you in high esteem nevertheless. Best wishes to you.-- MONGO 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well you really surprise me. You have placed a POV tag on this article and announced at DYK that you dispute its accuracy. That would have been fine if you had said what your dispute is, and why you consider the article is POV. But you do not appear to have done that anywhere. Have you got some reasonable argument? If not, then what is going on with you? Admins should not behave like this. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please self-revert, otherwise I will report you.
Viriditas (
talk)
08:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Rubin, however awkwardly IPs state their case, it is you who comes across as the POV warrior. It is time you came clean and explained where the obsessive flurry of obstructive edits you make on planetary boundaries comes from. There is nothing I can find in the literature to support your position, apart from some throwaway comments made by Stuart Pimm when the concept was first floated. And I note that Pimm does not appear to have repeated or expanded his objections, and it may be that it is Pimm who has the egg on his face. Are you coming from a religious fundamentalist position? Or is it just that you genuinely believe, that even if God if not looking after all of this for you, then everything is going to be fine anyway, because that is what you want, and that the concept of habitable boundaries must therefore be nonsense? If these comments misrepresent your position, then it is long overdue for you to explain and justify just what your position really is. Can you do that? If not, then soon I'm going to start reverting your more eccentric and dysfunctional edits. You are bringing administrators into disrepute behaving this way. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking pretty hard for sources. The book's been cited many times but not discussed. It might meet "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" from WP:BK#Academic and technical books. Anyway, you were talking about possibly nominating the prior content so I thought I'd drop you a note.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
17th century BC. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Quit removing factual information regarding Pfizer. I will sit here and revert your changes forever.
I will provide a source then...if you remove it after that we know your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you consider Pfizer to be a reliable source? This is your final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The factual statement, "Premarin, a hormone replacement drug created from the urine of pregnant mares which a percentage of are eventually sent to slaughter houses" come from the GAO slaughter report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your extraordinary diligence on climate change articles, accompanied by an amazing ability to stay out of the mud. SPhilbrick T 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
(I really wanted a "takes a licking and keeps on ticking barnstar, but I couldn't find one)
I don't think I'm edit warring and I'm not trying to edit war. I only reverted one person's edit. The article seemed to be better as I wrote it.- Rememberway ( talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night ( talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't going to bother you, but I wasn't sure whether you'd read the history, Fly by Night recently removed the whole thing, we had got a link to turn (geometry) obviously because there's tau radians to the turn, which is what makes it useful of course since a turn is an identity. Or link to Pi#Criticism? I'm 3RR at the moment on it due to wretched Quandle, but obviously do whatever you want. - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
p.s. An Erdos number of 1? Sweet. - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
p.p.s. poodle of doom could well be a sock puppet, feel free to check user, it's not me either! ;-) - Rememberway ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are you people deleting an image with the same use and raitonal as: File:AFC-1960-Uniform-NE.PNG [30]
The pictures all have the form filled out and are the same as other NFL articles which meet standards and are NOT being deleted.
If there is paperwork that is incorrect, then help get it to conform, but the rationale and fair use is 100% the same as [31].
If you have a problem, delete the Boston Patriots seasons and other teams as well. Right now what you are doing is very close to wiki-stalking abd you've not attempted to discuss this. You have not assumed good faith and are vengence-editing. RussFrancisTE81 ( talk) 15:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have reported your actions to [32] I do not think you acted in good faith and are picking on me and wiki-stalked me without contacting me. It seemed likeyou were edit-warring with me and that is why I stopped. My usages are 100% the same as the ones I posted. All I want to to be treated fairly and not picked on or attacked and your actions are inexcusible. I admitted I don't know the rules to a "T" but I can see that scores of articles are using similar pictures and are not being attacked by you RussFrancisTE81 ( talk) 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Arthur Runin. I left a comment for you about Geomagic squares at Talk:Magic square -- Foobarnix ( talk) 08:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
About Convention (norm) edit 06:39, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143
Which are the few which you agree to and which are these you do not agree to?
Mormegil 87.18.197.73 ( talk) 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The same for Purpose (edit 05:47, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143)
Mormegil 87.18.197.73 ( talk) 12:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault&diff=438709556&oldid=438699733 ... (Revert inappropriate changes; don't unlink redlinks, as it may generate new article; don't add hyperlinks in body...they go in the External Links section; Portwave appears to be a personal website, so it isn't a valid source.) ... User:Huntster 99.181.151.89 ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur I deleted your proposal to delete " Dark side of planning." The term "Dark side of planning" is widely used in planning and planning research, see references. Your reason for deletion, i.e., "The term is rarely used in the real world," applies to an even higher degree to numerous other entries on wikipedia, for instance subjects in economics, math, etc. So if you were to be consistent all these other entries, many of which are well established, should also be proposed for deletion. Your reason for deletion also does not seem to appear on the official list of reasons for deletion. I therefore kindly ask you to not propose deletion. This entry is important to those of us who work in planning. I hope this is okay with you? Kind regards Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. If the discussion concludes that the article should be deleted, I would like to suggest that the article is instead moved to the "Planning" article as a subheading in this. Gsaup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsaup ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What exactly do you mean by "more precise" in respect to Eulers identity? Perhaps an good thing to expound a little on that? Kleuske ( talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you've added to your user pages that you'll be attending law school soon and will be busy with less time for Wikipedia. Just wanted to say thanks for your history of reverts on touchy articles like New World Order (conspiracy theory) and Alex Jones (radio host), among other articles I happen to watch as well - your watchful eye is appreciated and hasn't gone unnoticed. Making sense of the nonsense can be tedious! Hopefully you'll be reasonably conscious on Wikipedia though. By the way, will you be seeking to concentrate in any particular field of law, be it civil, criminal, international, etc.? John Shandy` • talk 05:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, Thanks for the reminder. The correct URL for 26 CFR 1.61-2 looks like this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:2.0.1.1.1.0.2.2&idno=26
The link to the table of contents for Title 26 looks like this:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title26/26tab_02.tpl
I have stripped off the session id that the GPO's system puts in. This website is updated daily for CFR changes (all titles), and is generally the most complete and accurate available. Thanks for the help! And your sage advice is always appreciated. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 02:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
SwisterTwister has eaten your cookies! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating them. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:plate}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat the cookies with {{ subst:munchplate}}!
In case you get hungry during law classes, I've packed a plate of cookies for you, enjoy. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Exuse me. Where do you write about this? You explain, please [33]-- Many baks ( talk) 16:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, user Cherkash has edited Foreign tax credit using AWB to insert links to the Code of Federal Regulations using the Wikipedia function that links to the wrong place (out of date regs). I cannot undo the changes. That article now has links to regs that are obsolete. I have left the user two messages (one some time ago) about this problem, to no apparent effect. Can you undo the changes to Foreign tax credit? Thanks. Oldtaxguy ( talk) 22:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
In case you're not still watching it, I commented briefly at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Overlinking_of_magazines_or_publishers.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 07:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I was curious about which article you were referring to in respect of the standard win score being 121. The wikipedia article on cribbage cites 121 or 61 and although I don't claim to be an expert on the game I thought the reference I posted ought to have been a good enough source (as in the expression "according to Hoyle"). This is my first contribution to a talk page, btw, so forgive any silly mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to know your thoughts on the Natural Number 0 and why you reverted it. Wikipedia should be consistent, and in the conclusion of the natural numbers Wikipedia page, it references that 0 is NOT widely accepted as a Natural Number, so it should not be included in the list of natural numbers, which people may refer to and incorrectly use as a natural number even though it is not widely accepted. I figure I should Post this on your talk page so we don't keep reverting back and forth.
63.100.53.2 ( talk) 21:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you see this? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
the page Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality/Population puts automatic information of NIS in the part population Template:Infobox_Belgium_Municipality
example look to Aalst, Belgium, it's 2006, look the dutch one http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aalst_(Oost-Vlaanderen) and you have the 2010 information
so you can't change it you're self but the current information is quite old 2006!
there is a list of 2010 on http://economie.fgov.be/nl/binaries/Pop%20Bevolk%2001012010_v2_f_tcm325-109882.xls
is it please possible for someone to update this?
it's really ridiculous because on the dutch page everything is 2010 but when people of other countries update information they look mostly on the english page and copy that information so they put the 2006 information of the english page while correct information of 2010 is on the dutch page
so please can someone do something?
Klodde ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
See thank you on WP:TEA. (",) 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... dude, WTF?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to join in with the discusion. Robo37 ( talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Arthur,
Thank you for all your comments on the articles that i posted. It seems that the quality standards in the English section are much higher than in the Dutch section that i normally write for. In the future i will include references.
You proposed to delete the article about Peter Colfs. In this case i think you might be right. The Dutch article that i wrote some time ago in Dutch was based on the following link http://www.simonis-buunk.nl/collectie/details/Peter_Colfs_9164.aspx but maybe this is not a reliable source because as you mentioned Peter Colfs is not mentioned in the article about the Prix de Rome. Therefore i have listed it in the Portal:Arts/Things you can do to be verified and expanded. I also removed most of the statements in the article.
I don't agree with your deletion proposal for the Buddhist monastry Wene Karmae Chö Ling. I think this building is just as notable as all the other small monastries that are mentioned in Wikipedia (and have the Buddhism-monastery-stub-template). What makes it special is that it is one of the few buddhist monatries in the Netherlands and also one of the few in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weetjesman ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please re add the study because it is based on reliable sources not a conspiracy as you wrongly alleged, for further discussion visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Removing_of_Greenpeace_Study Gise-354x ( talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a dispute going on with User:Loonymonkey, User:Tommyboy1215 and yours truly regarding how to handle the U.S. Chamber of Commerce controversy on the Lee Fang page. Would you mind having a look? Starbucksian ( talk) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for sorting out the Category:Global warming controversy formatting (on reflection it's obvious it disappears from main text {{{forehead slap}}}). Out of interest, what does the first colon "mean"? Is it useful anywhere else? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 02:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. To date there have been six people inviolved in discussions on this article. So at present its three against three. I therefore don't see how you can fairly argue for a consensus aginst the lead as it is.
Of the three of them who were involved in the discussion about inclusion of the word 'fringe' as a definition in the intro, two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have not contested nor expressed any difficulty with the new lead. So again how do you suppose it goes against consensus? In fact its even been edited and adjusted slightly.
One of these three has accepted the lead as it is ("I don't care at all about the lead paragraph right now - I'm only concerned that... " etc. John Shandy), so he has accepted it.
Two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have since suggested we other three go ahead and make whatever changes we think and when they have more time, they intend to discuss: "do what you will with it we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with..." etc. So my change is totally in accordance with what these two people have suggested we do so and is therefore TOTALLY in concord with those involved in the discussion and therefore can not be fairly undone on a claim of reverting to consensus view.
Its three against three without any of the above and both the main protaganists have accepted changes being made till they have more time.
Please do not now stop us moving forward by edit warring after this agreement with Loremaster and John Shandy. To do so mean we we get nowhere. And if you disagree please discuss first, then we can all see what the consensus is. It is very frustrating that after all our discussions you feel you can come in without discussing or contributing at all except to revert and undo.
I have also added this message to you to the conspiracy theory discussion page, so if you want to answer, please do so there.-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You do realise that the version you just removed, is the same version that you reverted TO on 26 August, claiming it was the "stable version"??? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for (hopefully) getting this anonymous un-hatter better educated about use of wiki talk pages thru a temporary block. Its possible they meant it in good faith, but hopefully they'll someday read WP:DISRUPT, where it says even good faith edits are disruptive if the editor doesn't know wiki guidelines and how to edit pages accordingly. Mucho gracias, NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
With respect to Talk:Climate change policy of the United States please be mindful of WP:3RR. The edit warring presently happening is inconsequential in the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#What_is_a_limit_ordinal.3F, where discussion is currently taking place rather than assuming consensus without evidence. Currently most editors in the discussion favor language that is neutral to both definitions, as both definitions appear in multiple textbook sources (and respected Universities and departments which rely upon a single source, also differ between which of the two they use). TricksterWolf ( talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'm telling you anything new, judging from this-- 50.42.182.54 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.190.84.66 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), that's the same editor. Drmies ( talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Except that 50. seemed to have an obscenity filter. I scanned through his edits and I think all the filter trips have been reversed, but another pair of eyes would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arhtur,
I found ur new editoring to the norm inequities between r norm and p norm. I think it will be better to put the conditions to hold the equality there, like did by the original version.
Thanks!
Shuai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 ( talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, since entrywise matrix norm is in parallel to vector norm after vectorization, it is very necessary to add the entrywise inequalities under different p norms.How about the section "Equivalence of norms"? I think that is a good place to plug it in. Thank you for your hardworking even on labor day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 ( talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a reply to my question "Reference to cribbage in the '61 (number)' article" (now archived), I'll just put the page back the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point of view regarding the non-interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources for this purpose. However, under WP:CALC, performing an average calculation doesn't constitute interpretation, which is why I'm trying to stick to the primary source in this instance. You seem experienced and unbiased and I'd appreciate your help in keeping this edit as accurate and sanitary as possible. I've been trying to keep the edit clean for a while now but others keep throwing dirt and nonsense on it. Your thoughts? Quophnix ( talk) 16:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Decoherence in the environment is monitored through the Wigner distribution function of the system, and its gradual loss of negative values with time. Zurek and collaborators, cf refs 6,5,4 in the article, are quite proud of their extensive work on the subject; I am not clear on what you expected to see. I believe the Wigner quasi-probability distribution function, which is the density matrix in the phase-space representation, is the tool to use in developing any usable intuition on quantum decoherence, if the non-Throop reader is to make any sense of the article at all, as it stands. Your call to reinstate the wikilink. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my edit (on the Tea Party movement) I was correcting that the source (already listed in the page as name="vogel1" [2] ) reads "...the poll also found that tea partiers are less educated, but more interested in politics." and the wiki page reads "...likely to be more wealthy and have more education" and sources that article. I did not add a source, I simply moved the source already present, as there is a clear error here, or rather a selective exclusion or bias towards certain parts of the source. Smzcl ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been pondering whether to merge this with Timeline of the far future. I've been going over the remaining material and, bar the fictional references, which could be broken off into their own article, I'm not sure which listed events are truly noteworthy. Most of them aren't sourced and those that are are heavily slanted- are occultations of Regulus, as opposed to any other star, really that important? Anyway, don't mean to come off as a grumpy guts but I thought I'd let you know where I stood on this before doing anything. Serendi pod ous 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I found some citations for some of the information on the page, so I'm in the process of moving the information over. But it will take some time. Serendi pod ous 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit conflicted as to whether [34] constitutes a reliable source. Which is a shame because I think the info deserves to be included. Serendi pod ous 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur, I'm looking into the behavior of some IPs. I notice that 97.87.29.188 and you seem to have been in a scrap about Oct 2010 somehow related to their pet project, the plan.bound. article. Is that about when the IPs advocacy of that article really took off? What's the backstory? No rush, drop me a line inbetween cram sessions for the bar (no sense putting it off you know...) Best of luck in the new endeavor. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
for|(the) current climate change|global warming}}
to all articles loosely related to climate change, linking
scientific opinion on climate change to every opinion (whether or not be a scientist) on global warming, and a few others still mentioned in
User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change, even though they're not doing that any more. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)What's the problem of articles about socio-cognitive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-cognitive ? You've written "still sourced only to Gadomski" it's not only of Gadomski articles.
First you look, after, where is something not related to socio-cognitive concepts, remove it.
Are you an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so. -- CogSci11 ( talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
My question was: Are YOU an expert in cognitive science? And.... Do you work in a department of cognitive science? Have you written an scientifi journal article on cognitive science? Do you present poster/presentation on cognitive science conference?
If NO, you have no right to remove anything in socio-cognitive topic. -- CogSci11 ( talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"encyklopedia everyone can edit" but the founder of Wikipedia have assumed that their editors are reasonable and they correct either formal properties of articles or they correct those which really refer to their knowledge.
You've written: "Expert opinion are welcome". Mr Gadomski is an expert in cognitive science as a member of the scientific board of ECONA (Interuniversity Center for Research on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems) which include 12 biggest Italian Universities and is chairman of many international cognitive science conferences. Mr Gadomski was in editorial board of Cognitive Processing (ed. Springer) by few years. And look: First International Workshop Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SCEF/index.html where list of members of the scientific board, is evidence on the recognition of Gadomski. I've written this link, because I suppose, you don't know these persons which are universally recognized as authorities on the cognitive subject.
Mr Gadomski is an expert. You're not. I'm sorry. Write into google engine "socio-cognitive engineering" and everybody may see results: Wikipedia Sharples Gadomski Gadomski Gadomski Sharples In socio-cognitive engineering are two main approaches, one represented by Sharples(more focused on human oriented technology development/informatics perspective) and second by Gadomski(based on general sistemic perspective/paradigms http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/toga-parad.htm and functional representation of abstract inteligent agent). The approach of Castelfranchi is closer to Gadomski but Castelfranchi underline stronger social aspect of socio-cognitive modelling.
You've written too:
- "the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources" and you removed good source from international journal! Are web pages more reliable than articles of Gadomski?
- "still sourced only to Gadomski" and you removed articles, where is more than one author (Adam Maria Gadomski, Sandro Bologna, Giovanni Di Costanzo, Anna Perini, Marco Schaerf, Mauro Cappelli, Massimo Sepielli). Congratulations.
No logic. No sence.
-- CogSci11 ( talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how looked this situation in the past. I know that you're not an expert in cognitive science domain (I'm sorry. It's true) and you shouldn't remove link to good journal (I bought one of this article and I can write that is good). I finished study of cognitive science but I don't want write my surname. You're unpredictable, don't keep rules of discussion and you don't answer on my questions and you've written that 'no sense is correct' - no comments) and I think that giving any information about me don't change this situation. Wikipedia can check my login/log/e-mail and they know that I am not Mr Gadomski.
I'm convinced that you have no right removing new articles from good source (never mind who is an author). o! I saw that I pasted wrong link (referring to login page) to the article(joint work), better is http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.6341&rank=1 article is better than abstract. I think, that somebody could ask Mr Gadomski to insert this article on his page but I supposed that it can be problem with copyright but in wikipedia is lot of links to books and to the materials not directly available on the web.(nevermind)
Now I'm sorry but I don't have so lot of time like you. I don't know what you do every day but I see that you're editing at night and day very different topics. Are you an expert of everything?
If you write 'no sense is correct', further discussion has no sence. I'll insert link of this discussion on Gadomski user page(if it's user page of really Mr A.M.Gadomski). Anyway. Thank you. I didn't know that he has a user page on wikipedia and I see that you discussed with Mr Gadomski on his user talk page. It's interesting :) Anyway, Have a nice day and night removing... :) -- CogSci11 ( talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, In my opinion my addition in the Climate change in the United States deserved its place. [35] I received WP:Tea for this addition. [36]
In the discussion we can agree about the appropriate sources: Talk:Climate change in the United States. Watti Renew ( talk) 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't understand your short comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Lindenberg ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
"if someone other than you propounded it" - Bob Palais (the author of Pi is Wrong) has propounded the idea that students make mistakes with extra or missing 2's or 1/2's in their formulas because of this, both publicly and in emails to me.
When you say my two paragraphs have nothing not in common, do you mean they're repetitive? The second paragraph is purely about the practical benefits (fewer equations to memorize, fewer mistakes). The first paragraph is about this three-way symmetry being an indication that tau is the true circle constant.
When you have three sets of equations that match each other closely in form, the word "symmetry" seems accurate. What would you rather I call it?
What's already in the article doesn't mention the thin triangles at all, which these other equations are derived from, and doesn't mention the "symmetry" between the equations for circumference and arclength.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The drawing at the top of my web page sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool might help make this clearer. There are also a couple paragraphs of explanatory text below it, if that helps.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't quoting my web page as a source. I was just giving a link to a drawing that shows the idea more clearly than I can express in written text. I created an external link with the word "Illustration", not a reference. However, I've been developing that drawing with feedback from Bob Palais, Michael Hartl, Peter Harremoes, and Kevin Houston.
The point I was trying to make by spelling out that the area of the thin triangle was instead of just writing is that I'm not saying this is just a very short arc. Of course we can use on any size arc no matter how small. But this is a triangle with three straight sides. That's why I list it separately as a third case.
Until I can convince you this argument has enough merit not to be deleted, I'll post my web page under Further reading.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 10:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I modified the entry that was there to include the circumference/arclength formula similarity. This time, unlike last time, I did put my web page as a reference. I could also list
Peter Harremoës's page and
a forum posting by Pi Manifesto author Michael Cavers to show you I'm not the only one who has mentioned this argument for tau publicly. But my website has the most thorough treatment of it. I actually do hope that changes as more people become aware of this argument for tau.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality
Is there something you're not understanding? Public awareness ( talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A terrorist is someone who tries to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people. By that standard, the 19 hijackers of 9/11/01 were terrorists. This is a matter of fact, not just opinion. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards. SomeHuman 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Euler's Identity contains a section about how Euler's Identity is just a special case of a more general identity. Is it possible to put a footnoted reference to it in another Wikipedia article? (Or would this particular fact just be considered "common knowledge" that doesn't require a footnoted reference?)
Thanks for your help.
Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 02:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep this kind of thing up and you won't be an administrator for much longer. [37] Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Number 8 is referenced four places. What term did you mean? "Pizza-style slices"? Joseph Lindenberg ( talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I am glad to see that you are still editing Wikipedia. You probably do not remember me; I tried to help User:Ludvikus when he was improving the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Someone has created an article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please could you keep an eye on it.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
"Conspiracy accounts" is common and easily understandable English, but your new version is fine as well. Mystylplx ( talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This deletion might be controversial, so send it to AfD. Bearian ( talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be very grateful if you can explain the logic of your comment here to me, as I do not understand it. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur....neither Malleus or John have a leg to stand on here...John has shown repeated examples of loathsome behavior for an admin and I can easily demonstrate that with a plethora of diffs should the need arise. A topic ban is in order for both editors...and a outright civility parole is inevitable for Malleus at the very least. MONGO 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I hate to eavesdrop, but I tend to talk-stalk admins I've had good encounters with. While you've been accused of incivility, I see as clear as day on your talk page that editors have directly and overtly attempted to insult you, dismiss you as a kid (knowing full well that you are an adult), and attack your education, all of which are uncalled for no matter what mistakes or misinterpretations you may make. If these editors ever manage to gather enough children of the corn to call your administrative position into question, please notify me of the venue and I will gladly testify to the attacks insidiously launched at you in this talk page discussion. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the merger of 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime I think you can go ahead with that per WP:MERGE Proposing a merger IV. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I posted the following validated information which was promptly deleted.
___________
___________
If the FDA, NIH, and PubMed can not be cited, what relevance does the article have. It is only a censored part truth with an agenda. All of these sites are available to be freely linked to. The information is entirely relevant.
If the link to the video is an issue, it, along with others is available on youtube.com .
You Wrote: :#That's not what you added.
The information above was cut from my computer and pasted into the page. I can not see how you claim that it is not what I added.
You Wrote: A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.
No, you are apparantly not aware that Hulda Clark was not the first or only one to promote the use of pulses. Even the FDA promotes the use of pulses to kill microbes such are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and virus in milk, juices, and water. [8]
You Wrote: :#The videos are clearly not reliable.
The videos are easily reproduced using only a source of pulsed electricity and a video microscope. They are made by amateurs and professionals alike. It is not a parlor trick, it is real.
You Wrote: :#"Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.
The basis of all of this is the generation of resonant frequencies. Everything has some sort of resonance. I would submit that if you are not studied in this then you are not the person who should be rejecting the entries of those who are familiar.
On top of that, I see you frequently hiding behind the mask of neutrality, yet in this case, you are obviously taking a side with an agenda. The entire page is strictly one-sided and these are not the first facts that have been unreasonably rejected. The net result, Mr. Orwell is that WikiPedia ( the source of reliable information ) is becoming Wiki-Ganda ( a source of propaganda ).
Perhaps you should start by reading "Body Electric" by Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. It is an outstanding source of information on the influences of electricity on life and visa versa. Then study the Medical Electric Battery, Rife, Beck, and many others.
Regardless, seeing that actions that have occurred here explains to me why the WikiPedia is not considered to be a credible source of information. It only tells the half of the story that the controllers want the public to hear.
How many of Dr. Clark's books have you read completely and thoroughly?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CPUDave (
talk •
contribs)
03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for forgetting to sign.
CPUDave ( talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies.
The very fact that the zapper does actually produce pulses across and through the body can be observed and documented using an oscilloscope. This has been done and images are available at paradevices.com [9] [10]. Even WikiPedia [11] shows that validity of Bio-electric stimulation which is the same thing, just a different term. The point here is that denying public access to this information when there is nothing to refute it is nothing more than blatant censorship.
As for the efficacy of the zapper, this too, has been established in at least one study. [12] This study shows that the "total with any improvement was 97.9%" ( for those who used the zapper ) and "In the control group, the average control also had 1.1 chronic infections; ... total with any improvement was 61.3%. In the group that used the zapper "48.2% reported substantial symptomatic improvement" where in the control group, only "12.9% reported significant improvement" This clearly shows that the zapper had a positive effect in a study with a control group. There has never been any study to refute this in any way. Disallowing this information, again is censorship.
I believe that I read somewhere that you are studying law. I would hope that your pursuit of this is in the interest of fairness and justice and not for the purposes of oppression which is what is happening here. Readers of the WikiPedia should have a RIGHT to hear both sides of the story in an unbiased manner.
CPUDave ( talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 ( talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The left of a production rule in a grammar can be null. Here is the proof:
Imagine there is a rule in the grammar that says:
λ -> a B C | A B c | ...
And there are other rules such as:
A b C -> X y Z w
I can construct a grammar from this grammar that doesn't have null on the left of production rule and produces EXACTLY what this grammar produces:
Let's introduce a new nonterminal called L (named after lambda)
First rule is:
L -> λ
Then, all the rules are present, except between every two elements (terminal or nonterminal), there is an L. Therefore you get:
L -> L a L B L C L | L A L B L c L | ...
That was for the rule where it said λ -> ...
And for the rest of the grammar:
L A L b L C L -> L X L y L Z L w L
This new grammar produces the same words as the first grammar. In the first grammar, you could put an expression anywhere "out of the blue" because there is a λ between any element and it could produce an expression (because of the rule λ -> ...). In the second case, this role is played by L where, whatever you produce has L's between any non-L element. L can produce the expressions λ could produce in the first grammar and is itself reduce-able to λ.
This was a question in the book "An introduction to formal languages and automata" by Peter Linz which asked what are the implications of having λ on the left of a production rule. I came with this proof that in fact the restriction is not necessary. After no one believing me in the university (like you here), I emailed Peter Linz himself and he said that in fact that restriction is just for simplicity and in Turing's thesis is also not mentioned. Unfortunately I don't have that email anymore to show you.
I couldn't find on the internet the original "paper" that defined unrestricted grammars, but I came across this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_grammar that also states that there are no restrictions on either side of the production rule.
P.S. If you are interested in an example of such a grammar, imagine this
λ -> ()
This grammar produces nested parentheses. Without using λ, you had to write it like this:
S -> (S) | SS | λ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbaz Youssefi ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur,
I provided information of interest to the subject matter about our not having a year zero and you deleted it. The reason you are stating is that the information is not subject related. However, if there are no mathematical systems in which zero is absent, then this helps readers understand that our having a calendar without a zero is a man-made accomplishment (similar to art, and not nature). There is no reason to ridicule the man-made result, but it is good for the wiki-readers to know the difference why the calendar arrived without a zero. Here is the information one more time, and I hope you will revert your deletion, since wiki is about information on the subject matters, and the artful aspect of it should not be left out of the picture.
If you (or others) can write a better introduction, then I appreciate that. From a mathematical perspective, systems always come with a zero (i.e., a blank spot).
Mathematics
Whether systems do indeed exist without a zero is a question that can be answered by mathematics. Please note that systems are based on the people adhering to them, such as historians who never use a year zero. This segment on Mathematics does not undermine the calendar as currently used, because its use is not based on mathematics.
When investigating the natural numbers, a pattern can be distinguished among these numbers that leads to the forced use of zero. From this, the conclusion is justified that all numerical systems automatically come with a zero.
Source: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html
Greetings,
Fredrick FredrickS ( talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I closed the discussion and merged 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Rubin:
I see that it is not possible to edit the introduction at the top of the Griffin page.
There is a link to your name there.
Are these two things connected?
The page fails to mention that Dr. Griffin was professor of philosophy of religion and theology, from 1973 to 2004, at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University.
Thank you,
PureLogic PureLogic ( talk) 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
you obviously do not now anything about my country, and I am so sorry about that. Wikipedia is obviously not free and it does not share knowlege..it is a faschistic place for the privileged molesters. The fact that I posted is true. Live long and prosper my mathematician friend. 35! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.60.137 ( talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to preserve as much information as possible in the merge but there has been a significant amount of data loss due to my inability to locate proper sources. I want you to know that I'm still searching for good sources for the missing information and when I find them it is going back in. Serendi pod ous 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, btw I'm talking about Timeline of the far future Serendi pod ous 11:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I made a new proposition on the article's talk page. Could you kindly comment? Cheers, Racconish Tk 08:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
List of 'Occupy' protest locations. Another clueless admin who makes changes without discussion. I have been editing the page. Have you? My page name change is uncontroversial. If you had read the discussion and followed the links you would have seen that the discussion was not about whether single or double quotes were used. Admins like you are why many people quit Wikipedia. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The point of my proof is that CH is independent of ZF but.... It is not independent of ZFC and Induction. So you need to assume two things... and then you prove something you knew... and something you didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Learn what a trichotomy is, and what strong induction is, then you should be able to understand why I am right even though Cantor was also correct.
Don't worry, you'll be able to understand it when I explain it to CMI and get my million. Thanks for looking though, I appreciate people asking questions so that I can show there's nothing wrong with it.
WhatisFGH ( talk) 23:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
a cool hip teacher, and is very knowlageable on the american liturature arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indians15 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I've your edits and comments on a number of subjects I edit, all I gotta say is right on man. You seem to edit in a fair and non-partisan way which is great. I think it is rare to find people willing to give both people the time of day at an argument. Keep up the good work, we need more editors like you.
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 21:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Please view the discussion at the article's talk page concerning the content in question, and accept this friendly reminder that you have made three reversions on The Colbert Report article within 24 hours, and that your last edit was not a minor one, as it removed content as part of a dispute, and that rollback should not be used for such. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Hey Arthur Rubin/Archive 2011! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).
If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).
I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I've been watching 99.190.85.15 and yourself adding and deleting a link to Executive Order 13514- ie 13514 . When I follow the link it takes me to a reasonable copy of http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf . Is there a reason that you hate the s: link so much? Could you tell the guys at Talk:Plug-in hybrid so that perhaps you two can come to an agreement because continually adding and deleting it with no real explanation is driving the rest of us crazy. Thanks. Stepho talk 06:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add a in-heading summary to describe the gist of your proposal here. That page is getting swamped in proposals already, and I think participation is dwindling because of WP:TLDR. Having some meaningful headings would probably help. Per WP:TPG I could even do it myself, but I'd rather have you summarize your own proposal. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 19:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, what in the name of God are you doing in law school? Strikes me as a perfect waste of a first-rate mind and an expensive graduate education in mathematics. LOL
BTW, the so-called "TQ" punctuation that I learned in grade school always placed semi-colons and colons outside the quotation marks in a partial quote of original text. I don't believe that's an ALWD innovation; I believe it's a standard part of the usual American system of quotation. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Plarem has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
Happy Halloween! – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs)
15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Again ... What? How so, per you? 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Prepare to Talk:Climate change mitigation scenarios. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Indirect_land_use_change_impacts_of_biofuels#Include_global_warming_wikilink_and_Portal:global_warming. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Land use, land-use change and forestry. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Template talk:Global warming. 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings, also regarding Fleet vehicle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fleet_vehicle&diff=459367260&oldid=459367164), and Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emissions_%26_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID)&diff=459367339&oldid=459367206). 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Emissions_&_Generation_Resource_Integrated_Database_(eGRID). Please follow your own excellent advice and withdraw from the conflict before someone gets hurt. I hate it when excellent admins get caught up in what is "right" and allow themselves to be taken down for not following the rules. Thank you. Ebikeguy ( talk) 02:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear, Arthur, I see that you and I disagree as to the reliability of the book, Annals of the World. Where I use it as the foremost reference point for Biblical and Jewish history, you seem to deem it so wrong that any article that references it must be totally destroyed. Every time I try to defend its integrity, or at least the rational to leave the article standing, you flatly ignore me and simply direct me to Wikipedia policies that are non sequitur. So I'm going to take this from a different approach this in the nicest possible way. You tell me, out of your infinite wisdom, what exactly constitutes a reliable, verifiable source? (If the problem with Annals of the World is not because its not a reliable, verifiable source, then you have no right deleting it, as per WP:Accuracy). If for no other reason, I would just like to know what constitutes an accurate source, simply so that my work doesn't get deleted again.
By the way, I also don't understand, even if that one reference was totally unacceptable, how that justifies deleting the whole article. If you actually read my work, you would know I quoted many works outside of Ussher. What makes Ussher so evil, that any article he's mentioned in must be deleted, at the sacrifice of all the other reference? What exactly are you afraid of? But more important than this, I would just like you to give me a definition of a reliable source, please. LutherVinci ( talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library | ||
You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic· t 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
There is someone editing as an IP and hopping around lots of Ip addersses in Michigan. Do you have any idea who this could be? [39] [40] They seem to revert quite a few your edits, but that could be just because you are patrolling IP edits. I'm not sure what's up with the IP editor but I'm slowly looking into it. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, You had removed a section on unfair Labour Practices in the article about The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy because it was unsourced and seemed irrelevant. It had, however, replaced an earlier section that was indeed sourced, and I believe it is highly relevant because the Institute is known for its large number of interns that spam and cold call universities all over the world. I have therefore reinserted the older passage (which was not written by myself!). I am happy to discuss this if you disagree. Best SkaraB 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I notice
this user and either he is stalking your edits or vice versa. Is this a known sock? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—►
04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated a modified background section that omits what you describe as "trivia" but retains items material to the biography. Do not continue to delete relevant, sourced information from the article. Please note that this person is definitely notable and will continue to have an entry here. I suggest you compare the entries for Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme to see how this article will end up looking. I am going to keep working on the first paragraph of the Oscar article, because right now it is really terrible. Bundlesofsticks ( talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, a link to the RfC would be necessary, and please remind me whether the RfC really did say that local consensus can override the community's consensus in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Then you said, "Please disregard my comment about the sports timelines. There seems to be no project consensus." That is how the matter has been understood. Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
to say that i have been 3RR'ing when now you see the scope of this massive disaster here ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davshul, disruptive editing) --- if only i had been listened to at the begining-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 19:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
[41] Better use talk, the in-line space appear too limited. 99.90.197.87 ( talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
This is a user who tried adding some wrong information into the Cardinality page Introduction 11/26/2011. Sorry I got that completely wrong. I was thinking that it might be really nice to have some reference to Cardinality of the Continuum in the Intro in really simple terms to give math newbs some idea of what they are getting themselves into by looking at Cardinality. I know it's included in the very next section after that (Comparing Sets) with links to look up natural numbers and real numbers if someone doesn't know what those are. And the amount of weight that someone that knows about set theory gives to its different parts(or how they think about it) is probably different than what someone else can appreciate. But it seems like cardinality being able to distinguish between different infinite sets is a pretty profound thought for someone not used to it, and that this would be good to introduce in the introduction to sort of soften the blow. So on behalf of the mathematically challenged I guess I'm asking you to consider fixing the section I tried adding and leaving it in. For people that already know about cardinality, they can just be mildly annoyed, but reassured in their memory I think. For people that don't know I think it really could help in their appreciation of what they've come upon.
Please delete after reading.
Thanks, J'odore ( talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this.
Hi Arthur - You recently reverted our posting on a planned Taiwan facility using Plasma to process Electrical Waste. Please can you advise what specific content you found to be advertising and we will amend accordingly. The facility is currently under intallation and people will be interested to know that it's in development. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.69.142 ( talk) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey Arthur, Good to see a fellow Techer fighting pseudoscience; especially good when we're talking about giving false hope to kids with cancer...
Sorry I'm late to the scene but I'll try to keep my eye on it from now on
Karthik Sarma ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to sign my comment on User talk:Abootmoose? CüRlyTüRkey Talk Contribs 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Today I discovered multiple edits done to the article Hierapolis which came from 2 different editors but the similarity in the edits makes me think that they were done by the same person. The edits were inappropriate or constituted vandalism so I removed all of them. I would like your opinion on this. The accounts are Maviyansima and Peterlewis. Dr. Morbius ( talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The edits are well sourced and verifiable, the truth and many agree and we will change the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirianet ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
See the "connection" in that article (the "Koch connection" ) - which cites Greenpeace without identifying the "dirty dozen" as opinion, and implying it is an official list from the UN -- the entire article is pretty much a laugh. Collect ( talk) 15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If Michael Leahy's and Brooks Bayne's websites aren't reliable sources for Tea Party information, then the Tea Party never happened! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfsbayne ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Fail how? Those two were there from day one. I've never heard of you. What qualifies you to be an arbiter of tea party information?
Arthur Rubin you and some others have made so many deletions [42] in my work [43] in 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that I feel that all my work is waisteless here. In my opinion the information has reliable sources that can be verified. In my opinion Greenpeace is a reliable source. Reader may evaluate it. Finland had independence jubileum 6th of December. Greenpeace was invited in the presidents castle party, the most important governmental party of the year. Watti Renew ( talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I start discussion of this edit [44] on talk page this week. Watti Renew ( talk) 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Arthur, I read somewhere that you are in law school. If so, any interest in helping out with some legal articles? Appeal could use some help. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Arthur,
I see you removed all the links I added. Why is that? The Magic Square links for example were to excellent web pages, completely relevant to that article.
Bob Ziff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rziff ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They were relevant because the water retention problem has been studied extensively on magic square and more recently on random surfaces. I just put that "water retention on mathematical surfaces" page up as a shell -- much more is to be added. In any case, I don't see how this controversy relates to what links are valid for the magic squares page. For example, one of the web links you removed was to the same webpage (Gaspalou's) as already exists there in Reference 14. 68.40.190.29 ( talk) 10:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, At standard part I was merely trying to include a brief application of this concept, to indicate its significance. Is it worth having a brief summary of infinitesimal definitions of derivative and integral here? Tkuvho ( talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Quicklinks to WikiProjects(Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another. Rockin291 ( talk) 15:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop being rude to me It does not matter whether the people of the future don't celebrate the 1000th anniversary or not because it has already been signed so no smart aleck can just say no. Just like a 50th birthday for example Say someone was born on January 1, 1961, then they would be 50 on January 1, 2011, and no one can just say no because he was born that day, so no matter what, they are 50 that day So Stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.152.50 ( talk) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised when I saw that the readdition of the jersey numbers to 10 (number) was done by someone who has contact with numbers beyond the stadium, and that this is indeed a standard you guys at WP:NUM agreed on. So, I trust your judgment that it is appropriate in that place.
But what about the duplication? As I wrote, I moved the information to Squad_number#Number_10. I hope you agree with me that having article-sized chunks of information duplicated in two articles is not a good solution, and that we should rather decide on one of them.
Now, between the two locations, the Squad number article seems clearly more appropriate to me: This is where I, at least, would look for such information.
In this light, I have considered to post a message at WT:NUM, asking how the decision came about, and whether it could be modified. But seeing that you have been the most active member there, I thought I'd ask you directly first. — Sebastian 08:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Math and law seem inherently contradictory to me. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I mentioned your leading question to Malleus here. I'm a great believer in behavioural allegations like this being backed up with evidence or retracted, so this is your chance to do one or the other, if you so wish. -- John ( talk) 13:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Arthur- I would appreciate your comments/explanation on the latest reversion you made of the rewording in the intro that I did on the Burzynski page. I don't feel the current wording accurately represents what the article that is cited actually states. The current wording makes it sound as if oncologists in general agree that Burzynski's studies as a whole are scientific nonsense, whereas the cited article explains that it's his methods which are considered sloppy, not necessarily the treatment or the results. Also, it only reflects the attitude of three doctors in particular, not oncologists as a group. Thank you, Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.177.69 ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, Thanks for your comments. Just a technical remark: the lub property, as indeed all properties, continue to hold in internal set theory, since we are dealing with the usual real line. More specifically, the enrichment is at the level of the syntax (the famous unary predicate "S"), but any statement not involving the predicate is true in ZFC+IST just as it is true in ZFC. Translating this back into Robinson's framework, the lub translates into a lub property for internally bounded internal sets. Tkuvho ( talk) 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)