Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot 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 2015 2016 2017 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!

I wonder if the community at DMOZ would be interested in joining the Wikimedia Movement? I bet we could get support for such a proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple factors involved. I can say it's being discussed in the new internal fora, but I don't think the operational models are compatible. The admin team is negotiating with AOL for access to internal DMOZ status not available to the general public, and the "DMOZ contract" may prohibit release of that data to the general public. Also, the COI model is completely different from that mandated here by the Foundation. For example, I would have been permitted to list my own website if I made the connection known to the "meta" editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ content is under a CC BY license so it is movement compatible.

With respect to COI, you can try to list your own website on WP as long as you disclose your relationship aswell. Here on Wikipedia you are allowed to hire someone to write a WP article about you or your business even.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:124.106.241.36, who you blocked recently, using the word 'evasion'. Can you say any more? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The IP is changing "English" to "British" whenever it appears in a description. I think that makes him/her close enough to the editor indef-blocked for doing that to count as block evasion. They share other characteristics, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of templating is wholly inappropriate. As an administrator, you should know that. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: You realize WP:DTTR is an essay, don't you? I would rather he stop making edits in violation of policy and consensus, and edit-warring to keep them in. I would prefer that he stop editing 2017 unless he can get consensus, but he has violated WP:3RR, and I'll file an WP:AN3 report when I get to my desktop, if I have to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rubin, where to begin. (a) DTTR, (b) INVOLVED (c) a war takes more than one side, did you warn the other editor(s)? (d) the situation was resolved, once again another admin action that's completely unnecessary (e) you clearly misunderstand SEAOFBLUE, there's no need to deliberately link to a redirect there (f) Where did I violate 3RR? Diffs please. Honestly, you should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an essay it might be, but it's also worth noting that to adhere to DTTR means you'll be acting with respect towards the other editor of long standing. Something you clearly know nothing about. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of your report and all the other places you've mentioned me, please now leave me alone, I don't want to be pinged by you, I don't want you to talk on my behalf, and if you need an admin action to be conducted, please get someone else to do it. You are not welcome anywhere near me any longer as it's clear to me that you cannot conduct yourself as a neutral admin. There are many other, more able admins who can deal with this kind of thing without all the infractions you've made in the in the past 36 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our main idea is to show that newly proposed shape (as evolution of older ideas) is practically applicable and feasible for computer science. Therefore I'd like somehow to stress, that new shapes can represent Base-256 numerals using single and consistent characters. As our idea was reviewed and published in IJCSET, I believe it is not "madeup" and has as much reliable source as ideas proposed by other computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdis.vitolins (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdis.vitolins: I may have been wrong to say it is not "reliable", but it seems uninteresting. I left your comment in Hexadecimal; I'll complete moving it to the top along with the previous failed proposal.

If you are Valdis, it's inappropriate for you to add the material, per WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now started stalking my edits. I'll add it to the list of admin abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown lack of understanding of WP:RY; why should I believe you understand categorization? As for specifics: not everything with "Institute" in its name is an institute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're stalking my edits with no good reason. As I said, this is noted and added to the list of your misdemeanours. Abuse of your position as an admin is not to be taken lightly. Please do something constructive instead. As for "lack of understanding of RY", are you therefore stalking the edits of all the other editors who have commented against the current way RY works? Or just me? Are you going to undo your lop-sided admin action at the RY guideline or do we need to report you for that as well? P.S. for clarification "Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK" is an institute whether you like it or not. That there are more refined categories is not in dispute, but claiming my categorisation to be erroneous is yet another false accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hi Arthur, Apologies for the "lovely" edit summary this afternoon - In short a couple of the editors there had already discussed and argued at length above my RFC and in turn one editor was blocked so I didn't want my RFC going the same way, I have no objections to discussions and debates but I didn't appreciate the RFC going from discussions to what I believe was more or less baiting so I wanted the whole thing hatted so that way they could take their issues somewhere else but regardless of all that I shouldn't of got so pissed off with you so my apologies for that,
Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for all these diffs where I have purportedly lied about guidelines. I have requested them from you four or five times now. You are supposedly an admin, you should know better. If I don't get them today then I will redact your accusations. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your lie that WP:RY is not a guideline applicable to 2017 is still present in Talk:2017. If you will strike that, I will strike my comment. If you redact my comment, without redacting ALL your related (that is, following) comments at Talk:2017, I will recommend you be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to repeat your accusation, I asked for diffs. Five times at least. Now please do that or I will recommend you are desysopped for making unsubstantiated claims and perpetuating lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can recommend what you want. I cannot easily copy diffs on my smartphone, but, as the text containing the misstatements is still there, unless you want to claim that your statements were edited by others, the evidence is there. Diffs are only necessary for _formal_ complaints. If I recall correctly, I reported that the complaint that you violated your restrictions was bogus -- although your comment on that defense may very well have been a violation of your restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have accused me of being a liar, several times in several places, so we are now formally at the stage where you have made a direct personal attack on me. If you really wish for me to formalise this at ANI because you lack the ability to provide diffs then that is your call. Redact the lot or I guess we'll have to take this to the drama boards. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, calling an erroneous edit from a good faith new editor "vandalism" seems symptomatic of your approach here. Perhaps we'll just go to ANI in any case to take a closer look at these, and other recent edits of yours. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. Especially given your pointed edit summary. You provide the diffs of my lie(s) and the diff(s) of me redacting them, or we go to ANI where you will be required to provide them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is your final chance (and I have also noted your talk page abuse), provide the diffs where I lie and provide the diffs where I redact said lies, or else I'll open a thread at ANI to demand you do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you bring an ANI complaint, I will provide diffs showing that you are disrupting discussions at WT:RY and Talk:2017, including statements that no rational person with a reasonable understanding of English could believe. I would rather that you stop the disruption, as some of your arguments are, although IMO damaging to Wikipedia, not entirely without merit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing my revision of the article, I found no instance in which I purported false information. Consequently, I will be reverting the article back to the condition in which I left it. However, per your reasonable request, I will provide a credible, external source (via an in-text citation) to substantiate my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkennedy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for having accidentally referenced the end of the 21st century as taking place on December 31st, 2099 instead of on December 31st, 2100. However, as this was merely a factual mistake and not an intentional attempt to disrupt the article's integrity, it does not constitute vandalism. Moreover, after visiting both of the websites that you've supplied as sources, I cannot locate any instance on either page in which your statement (albeit accurate) is corroborated. I would like to remove those sources and add the source that I presented in my most recent edit of the article. Before doing so, I would like to confer with you so as to avoid any further editing war. Please respond either here or on the article's talk page as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkennedy (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of editor IDs (the actual number of editors may be smaller) whose only mainspace edits are changing the range of years of centuries and millennia, sometimes also editing a 2005 version of the article. I apologize for considering you among that set, but introducing factual errors is bad, even when unintentional. See the talk page for further discussion, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]