Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

There ought have been a glass of bubbly, but I hope you can settle for a beer. Happy new year, you too! Sjö (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Talk:2014/Archive 1 is that Baltacha was not notable enough. I checked Frederiksen's non-English articles and found 3 that were created after his death, so he fails the minimum, besides which many of the others are stubs/clones so he doesn't seem particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfd2m has been nominated for merging with Template:Rfd2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sports contests I listed are neither local nor annual, so I don't know why you removed them. Serendi^podous 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at WT:RY is that, among regularly scheduled sporting events, only the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup qualify. If you want to argue otherwise, please make the argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing a request for discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because of your editing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you delete the MRB constant article, you might want to read my reply in the MRB constant talk page. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see Proposed rewrite with more use of references and less reliance on name in talk. Will something like that be better?Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the proposed rewrite about as complete that I can get it. If you would take a fresh look at it for me, I could use some help with it.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also requested a change to a couple of OEIS sequences that might add a little notoriety to the MRB constant. I'll add those if they come through.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you will get a ping about this since the IP is reverting some of your edits but I thought I would provide you with these links 99.112.213.171 (talk · contribs) is currently making the same edits that this IP 99.112.212.16 (talk · contribs) did. I was unaware that this one 99.112.212.211 (talk · contribs) was part of the situation when I reported them to AIV yesterday so I thought I would let you know about them if you want to add them to your list User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arthur Rubin! I ask you as an experienced wikipedian about the wiki-status of some words used in scientific proofs like considered or hypothesized. Can they be accidentally included in the category wiki-weasel words?--193.231.20.25 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on circumstances. Sometimes yes^{[weasel words]}, sometimes no. Within a proof, it's weaselly. Outside, it may be a factual statement of ignorance knowledge of the topic, or status of the topic within the field. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this AE request which was filed against you, and in accordance with the discretionary sanctions on gun control, you are hereby banned from making any edit related to the subject of gun control and from discussing gun control anywhere on Wikipedia. This topic ban is in place indefinitely, but you may request reconsideration after not less than six months of constructive contributions to other topic areas. You may also appeal this sanction in accordance with the procedure described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain but it's glaringly obvious that without breaking the Talk:73 (number) RfC into separate "survey" and "discussion" sections, it's going to be impossible for anyone to determine the outcome of the RfC. Your opinion seems clear but it would be inappropriate for anyone else to formalise your desired outcome in the "survey" section so could you please do so when you have some time. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arthur! I see that you are a mathematician! How do you see the difference between mathematics and mathematical physics? Is there really a significant difference?--85.121.32.27 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article on Income Inequality in the United States was completely rewritten, with the express purpose of eliminating all contrary / alternative discussion ...

READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource: First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative. Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset. Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation? Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.

Wikipedia needs editors like me. But trying to bring balance in this environment is like slamming my head against a wall. I am done.

I respect you enough to let you know ...

Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr

Thanks, Tolinjr. I appreciate your effort. As you know, I lean to the right (at least compared to Lenin), and many of the editors appear to lean to the left (again, compared to Lenin). Unfortunately, ArbCom seems to have taken the position that civil-POV-warring is better than uncivil warring in favor of neutrality. It would not be "politic" for admins to disagree.

It should be noted that socio-political userboxes were userfied, as part of the determination that "official" userboxes should only be used to indicate interests, not positions. I expressed the opinion then that self-identified conflicts of interest should be officially noted, but, consensus was against me.

There are a number of editors who (WP:AGF) believe that only economists who agree with their position are "mainstream", and, not being a professional economist, I cannot refute their assertions. Wikipedia must (per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc.) prefer mainstream sources to non-mainstream sources, so the battle has moved to "what is mainstream". I'll be sorry to see you go, but I can understand your concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate your thoughts. My thoughts as an economist ... Economics is an art. Anyone can interpret data or statistics and establish their own opinion as to what they mean ... causes and effects. Having been around it thirty-five years, theories ebb and flow, falling in and out of favor over time. Right now, its the Keynesian's turn. When the economy blows up as a result of massive government overspending and loose fiscal policy, the Chicago/Austrian school will be back in favor (although it will probably not be in my lifetime). The only thing that prevents the natural cyclicality of it are political policies that interfere with that process.

I saw so much potential in Wikipedia and had so much respect for it (from the outside looking in). What a terrible and massive disappointment to see it as it really is.--Tolinjr (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it feel to be completely wrong? If you're worried about out of control spending, look no farther than the Reagan and Bush years. Yeah, facts, they are funny things. You've got billions to build armaments, but not a single dollar to help grandma with her health care. Nice value system you've got there. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. User:Viriditas Out of the shadows fires a Wiki-sniper. I'm not a fan of Reagan's or Bush's spending either (sorry to disappoint you) but I do believe that free-market capitalism is far better than the alternatives. If people took responsibility for their own lives, rather than feeding out of the government trough, we would all be much better off. Enjoy ...

THE FALLACY OF POPULIST SOCIALISM: "The dream of forcing capitalists to share their wealth ... and the subsequent reality that the wealth merely shifts to politicians." --Tolinjr (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free market fundamentalism is a pathology best treated by strong, regular doses of facts and evidence. A lot has changed in the world. It's time to update your economic paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas Don't cry for me Argentina ... or the poor guy they found down there on Monday. That's socialism in full bloom ... perhaps the paradigm you are thinking of?--Tolinjr (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm thinking of the Reagan Recession of the 1980s, that robbed the middle class and transferred their wealth to the upper class, the Savings & Loan crisis that robbed the public, and the War on Drugs that put entire communities in prison. I'm thinking of Poppy Bush and the first Iraq War that robbed the treasury, education, and health and human services departments and led to another recession. And of course, I'm alluding to the eight years of outright thievery by Bush and Cheney, which robbed the country blind, committed war crimes, and made the average American poorer and less secure. I'm thinking specifically of Bush's Great Recession, the largest transfer of wealth to the upper class in history, and the unmitigated gall of the criminal financial sector which demanded that the public bail them out. The free market fundamentalism that you espouse has made people poorer, destroyed the environment and destabilized the climate, contributed to global financial instability, and killed hundreds of thousands in major wars based on lies to support corporate interests. Your ideology has failed, your beliefs have been shown without question to lack any kind of long term benefit, and your values are bereft of the most basic understanding of economics and social benefit. In short, your belief system, when put in practice, produces the greatest benefit for the least number of people, and cannot be considered a rational economic policy by any reasonable thinking person. Is that perfectly clear or do you need further evidence of your failure? Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Budget Office / Brookings Institution study (2007) and Pew Research Center Report (2009) both concur that both rich AND poor got richer during the Reagan administration ... In 2012, National Affairs journal published the following, "The implicit assumption behind the case for the injustice of income inequality is that the wealthy are the reason why the poor are poor, or at least why they cannot escape their poverty. If this claim were true, it would be much easier to connect income inequality with injustice, and so to justify a redistributionist agenda. Yet this assumption rests on another economic premise that itself is highly dubious: the idea that income is a zero-sum game. Moral critics of inequality often portray total national income as if it were a pie: There is only a fixed amount to go around, they suggest, so if someone's slice gets bigger, another person's must get smaller. Much of the moral debate about income inequality seems to rest on this zero-sum theory. As Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine put it last year, "This income shift is real. We can debate its effects all day long, but it's real. The super rich have a much bigger piece of the pie than they used to, and that means a smaller piece of the pie for all the rest of us." This is a completely facetious statement, because in any economy, the total amount of income is decidedly not static; economic exchange is not a zero-sum game." This is corroborated by a Pew Charitable Trust report released in 2009 entitled "Ups and Downs: Does the American Economy Still Promote Upward Mobility?" and by a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, finding that both middle and lower income Americans experienced absolute and inflation-adjusted economic gains between 1979 and 2005, thus dispelling the notion that increased earnings of high-income workers generally cause people to be poor or prevent them from improving their economic status.--Tolinjr (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I hereby bestow upon you the coveted "Strawman of the Year" award. Not a single word of what you've said above is relevant nor pertinent to income inequality. Not one. Of course, that's your strategy: divert, deny, distract.[1] Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise. 9 million manufacturing jobs were lost during Republican administrations, while 7 million were gained under Democrats.[2] The facts show that that conservatives work against the average working person and do not have any interest in creating jobs. In fact, Republicans are consistently on record encouraging companies to move overseas to the detriment of American workers.[3] Your argument that "increased earnings of high-income workers generally cause people to be poor or prevent them from improving their economic status" is patently absurd, as American workers have repeatedly lobbied for higher wages and income, only to be rebuffed by free market fundamentalists who want the government to give them tax breaks to move overseas and hire cheap labor. More to the point, income inequality lowers wages. So once again, we see corporate welfare for the rich at work. Free market fundamentalists gut American education so they can hire cheap foreign workers instead. We see again the failure of free market fundamentalism and yet another reason why no reasonable person can support it in good faith. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas Take a good read. You are one of the prime reasons Wikipedia is in decline. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ --Tolinjr (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read that article when it originally came out almost two years ago. Your links are older than your political beliefs. Has it occurred to you that the problem is your own political bias? You accuse everyone of having a bias; tell me, what responsibility do you take? Do you admit that you have a political bias? What have you done to work with others, to improve Wikipedia, and to work towards a compromise? Nothing? Then, obviously, you are the problem. Stop blaming everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not one single word of Viriditas's last two posts is relevant to "income inequality", and little is accurate. If I weren't involved, I what suggest a topic ban on Viriditas on all articles which mention or might mention market capitalism or libertarianism. He obviously has a WP:POV which he will not ignore for the purpose of editing. But, in any case, he is not welcome to attack (or even argue with) Tolinjr on my talk page. It's up to Tolinjr to decide if Viriditas is welcome to argue with Tolinjr on Tolinjr's talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are funny things, but evidence is not a POV. Why do free market fundamentalists and libertarians tend to gravitate towards totalitarian fascism? Nothing I've said is inaccurate, nor could you possibly find a single inaccurate word in what I've written, since I base it only on the finest reliable sources. I scoff at your claim of inaccuracy. Welcome to reality, it must be difficult to face the sunshine for the first time. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do free market fundamentalists and libertarians tend to gravitate towards totalitarian fascism?" Only in your mind. As well ask why liberal Democrats gravitate towards totalitarian communism (note: small "c", not capital "C"). And you're still not welcome to argue with Tolinjr on this page. With his permission, I'll collapse this thread. Your permission is not necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed a severe, draconian topic ban based only my talk page comments, not on any edits I've made to any article. This was not in my mind, this happened here in this thread, and it isn't the first time. You call yourself a libertarian, but you are very quick to come down hard on anyone who questions your religious beliefs. Some philosophy you've got there. I find it indistinguishable from fascism or totalitarianism. More to the point, psychological studies of conservatives have supported this argument, showing that conservatives tend to favor groupthink and obedience to authority over independent and critical thinking. So the facts are once more, against you. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I proposed the topic ban based on your posts on various article talk pages, and at WP:ANI, as well as at least one previous thread on this talk page. I haven't found any actual article edits you've made; if there were some, they would undoubtedly be in violation of WP:NPOV and probably WP:COI, but a topic ban for you on libertarianism and market capitalism is at least as justified as almost all of the topic bans in the Tea Party and Gun control ArbCom cases; and allowed under the American politics ArbCom case. I admit to not being uninvolved; but the POV you are promoting is nowhere near WP:NPOV.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If Viriditas makes one more post on my talk page, in which he promulgates his WP:FRINGE interpretation of libertarianism or market capitalism, I will file a request at WP:ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to report any more specifics of Viriditas's wrongdoing in this thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arthur. Good luck. --Tolinjr (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see this topic on this talk thread started because someone was complaining that they're unsourced rants weren't included in a wiki article and Arthur Rubin agreed and admitted he is conservative. This was already inapprrpriate so it's bad form to threaten Viridiate for putting his 2 cents in. Popish Plot (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(@Popish Plot: To begin with, I'm not going to correct your horrid grammar; I've done worse when posting using an iPhone.) Actually, Tolinjr was complaining that quotes of personal rants were appearing in the article, and his weren't. Viriditas then came on with irrelevant and potentially libelous comments about libertarians. Of the three, Viriditas has violated more of Wikipedia's core principles than any others referred to in this thread. And, for what it's worth, I only claimed to be conservative in a sarcastic way (compared to Lenin); Viriditas attacked me^{[note 1]} for my actual asserted libertarian tendencies, not for alleged conservative tendencies. It's difficult to keep score without a program. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section references

I read your comment at WP:AT

I would have thought that it would be grammatically incorrect, as would using the term Civil War to refer to either the American Civil War or the English Civil War. (A few months ago, I attended a presentation entitled "My civil war was worse than your civil war" (note the links), at the Huntington Library.

and though you might find this book short book (50 pages) interesting. The view on the last few pages are of their time (105 years out of date and obnoxious):

• Firth, C. H. (1900). The parallel between the English and American civil wars. The Rede lecture delivered in the Senate House, Cambridge, on 14 June 1910. Cambridge, University Press.

-- PBS (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find a Chinese-speaking editor to verify whether the sources for "Aruba" (or "Aluba") paragraph in List of school pranks are WP:RS reliable sources, and that the supply a source for the name I have little objection to the section being called "Happy corner", as there seem to be reliable English-language sources from Hong Kong. They were added by an editor who shows limited command of English.

I should know where to ask, but I don't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User zh-N gets you native Chinese speakers. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wrote a mini-essay on what's wrong with the current Pseudoarchaeology page. I don't think it's very fair of you to completely bypass the Talk page because you have more stripes on your profile. Multiple people have called out bias and arbitrary accusations on the talk page. The least you can do is respond to why you have a picture of someone who believes in Ancient Aliens next to a writer who sticks to real world evidence. What good is an open source encyclopedia if objections by non-admins are ignored? Address my issues on the TALK page, please. I won't drag out a long debate, but you can do better than "Nope, he's a pseudoarcheologist." Thanks.68.105.53.244 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the guidelines, the question of whether he is a pseudoarchaeologist is left up to the real archaeologists. We are not supposed to judge by reading the material ourselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arthur, Could I just bring to your notice that the block evading IP is again edit warring on the Central Intelligence Agency article and is also adding overlinking to other articles. Can I please leave it to you to action? Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Arthur and thanks for your message of thanks. It now looks as though our block evader is "editing" on Central Intelligence Agency from a similar IP address (99.112.213.137) and from the same location. Is this the time for page protection? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for providing a non-opinion. I will add more thought later. Shyguy76767 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shyguy76767: "Thought" has little place on Wikipedia, unless it is backed up by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]