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 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Please do not change the Lead to Joseph Romm without discussing it first on the talk page and forming a consensus. There has been extensive discussion about this already at the article. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear BLP violation. It's a controversial (although favorable) comment about a living person, not credited to a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, everybody seems very close to WP:3RR here. Please do discuss it, seek further input from other editors; and have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. If necessary, pls do take the matter to reliable sources, or the biography boards. It really helps nobody to have an edit war. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the "scare quotes", although the subject's brother will probably remove it when he wakes up. And I'm only close to 3RR if you include reversion of clear vandalism and of BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For helping clean-up vandalism to my page. -- Banjeboi 07:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, I noted this edit here and your edit summary. I'm a little confused, I may have missed something, but which statements of Paltridge's establish him unambiguously as a conspiracy theorist? I believe that editor Chjoaygame has made a relevant point about this on the talk page. If you look at the global warming conspiracy theory page you'll see the page itself admits that the label is pejorative. So the question is, how can we label a living person pejoratively as a "conspiracy theorist" unless we have a strong quote, e.g. Paltridge stating, "There is indeed a conspiracy of scientists out to defraud us all" or something of that sort? And even then, if he did say that, is Paltridge's personal conspiracy theory the same one described at the Wikipedia page? It might be worth noting that the WP:BLP has been recently updated to explicitly caution against the use of "see also". Alex Harvey (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He refers to others as conspiracy theorists, although not explicitly (in the direct quotes, anyway). The final sentence of the #Content section strongly suggests that he considers there to be a conspiracy to support action against global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get back to this in an hour or so. I may be able to come up with a better link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to this?

In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden agendas. "There are those who, like president (Jacques) Chirac of France, look with favour on the possibility of an international de-carbonisation regime because it would be the first step towards global government. There are those who, like the socialists before them, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between individual nations. There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the European Union, look upon such action as a basis for legitimacy. There are those who, like bureaucrats the world over, regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of power which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue."

Whilst I agree that Paltridge lets his rhetoric run away a bit here, this is not describing a "conspiracy" as such, certainly not an organised conspiracy, and it's not a "conspiracy theory" either, at least as the phrase is normally used. From conspiracy theory we have "Conspiracy theory ... has come almost exclusively to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities." That's not Paltridge's view, because there are no conspirators. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's too vague to put him in a category; a (shared) "hidden agenda" does not exactly amount to a conspiracy — or does it? The truth is out there. In any case, I won't add or remove the category until it's resolved to my satisfaction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, and I don't really know the answer. It would be interesting to know if Paltridge himself agrees with the "conspiracy theorist" label (my bet is he doesn't simply because it has such negative connotations). What troubles me is that via use of the "see also" we, as Wikipedians, are labelling him a "conspiracy theorist" without any attempt at satisfying WP:V. And given that both the conspiracy theory page and the global warming conspiracy theory admit that "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative and negative and I just can't see how it can be appropriate in a BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rubin, you are once again abusing your position as an admin, and I think you should ask another neutral admin to review your highly POV edits on this article and the 350 (organisation) article. Whoever gave you the broom made a grievous error. ► RATEL ◄ 05:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I haven't used any admin tools in this, other than possibly blocking someone who really vandalized the article by adding a #See also to a random article. I do believe that the attempts to link every article in wikipedia which has the number 350 in it to 350 (organization) is absurd, and the fact that it's a herd of anons with incomprehensible text and comments makes it more difficult to determine if any of the links should be placed, so I may have removed some which should be there. I doubt it, though; as it's controversial, for a person to be linked, both references to 350.org and some positive statement by that person is required. And you and the anon have created multiple BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Anyhow, FYI, I thought I'd just share here that in case you're ever doubtful about whether the labelling of Paltridge as a conspiracy theorist is appropriate or not, I've found a quote from Paltridge where he explicitly rejects the idea of conspiracy: "Conspiracy theorists would probably favour the idea that it was all planned 30 years ago by some small, shadowy, secret organisation bent on destruction of the world’s social order. Personally I would rather believe that, given the human addiction to tales of collective guilt, there is no need to invoke conspiracy as part of the explanation. The path to the final outcome was inevitable from the start." From here.

User 8.17.32.194 has so far twice vandalized the Life University page. He is deleting extensive portions of referenced information that is important to understand the history and political orientation of the institution. He has not posted any reasons for the changes in the discussion section and leaves the article with a biased POV in favor of the school. So far I've had to revert the article twice to undo his vandalism on October 6th and 7th. Please do something to stop it.~~AB

Why did you remove the updates I made about zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they appeared not to be sourced to reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article on:

Will Durant, 'The Story of Civilization', Volume 4, 'The Age of Faith', pp. 241.

on

http://www.archive.org/details/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs)

I have to accept your word that that's a reliable source, although his use of the never-accepted term "Hindu numerals" gives one pause. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas search the phrase "keep the rows" on this text page:

http://www.archive.org/stream/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp/ageoffaithahisto012288mbp_djvu.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only edited it with respect to verbosity. So let's discuss your concern on the Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like this change of just made to the lede of the 1st sentence: Conspiracy theory' literally means "a theory of a conspiracy."? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Perhaps later in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking it over, perhaps at the beginning of #Terminology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you please WP:Refactor your characterization of my person. I believe you are aware of the requirements of WP:No personal attacks. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot refactor my characterization and remain honest. I cannot come to a conclusion other than one of:

1. You are intentionally disruptive in assigning your claimed expertise in your research on the Protocols of Zion to articles and concepts which are not related.
2. You do not understand the real-world concept of conspiracy theory and that represented in the article New World Order (conspiracy theory)
3. You do not understand the concept we Wikipedians have chosen to describe in the article conspiracy theory
4. You do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If I said I was sure which of them you are, I'll refactor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply asking you that you remove all references to my conduct from the Talk page of Conspiracy theory. It's simply an Ad hominem argument at best. But also, I believe it violates the WP rules of WP:Assume good faith, as well as WP:No personal attacks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ad hominem argument. The fact that you were blocked for disruption (intentional or not) previously suggests that additional disruption (intentional or not) should be dealt with quickly and firmly, for the good of Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should first prove "disruption," after that you can bring up previous issues. But since you cannot prove a single rule violation, it is you who are being "disruptive" by bring up irrelevant previous issues. Admit the fact - you cannot prove a Single violation of any rule. So what you're doing is extremely disruptive on your part. Please stop Talking Writing about the Past on issues that have nothing to do with you. Just show me a Single violation - and I'll respond appropriately. But every time you just don't like an edit of mine, you say "disruption." Check out Wikipedia rules - that itself is a disruption by you. Please, please, stop for the good of Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want me to prove disruption, even though it would probably lead to your ban (stronger than a permanent block). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on John Todd (occultist) is at AfD right now. It'll almost certainly survive, don't worry. However, it looks like some people are signing up to help rescue the article, clean it up, find more reliable sources. As you've been involved in the Satanic Ritual Abuse article, would you have an interest in this John Todd article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may say anything you wish, truthfully about what you believe is improper, by WP rules.

But you have no right to engage in a WP:Personal attack on me concerning issues which have nothing to do with why a page should be Deleted,

or why you think a particular move on a particular page is wrong.

I urge you, please stop your personal attacks on me.

Stick to the exact way I violated some principle of Wikipedia.

Or just show me that a particular editor agrees with you on a particular move.

The instant that you show me that you have a Consensus, I will immediately do as that consensus requires.

--Ludvikus (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not as simple as you seem to believe, nor as complicated.

• It's simpler, as there had been a previous consensus against your changes in both articles, so you should have asked for comment before making the changes. You certainly should not have continued making changes after you were reverted until you understand why you were reverted or you get a consensus for your changes.
• It's more complicated, in that a 2-1 majority does not necessarily indicate a consensus. With your history of being blocked for violating consensus, you probably should stop unless there's a clear consensus for your actions, but 2-1 does not normally indicate a consensus.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't be a dick"

I strongly recommend that you read this Wikimedia article, and tell me what you think of it: [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect WP:TROLL may be better reading for you. Although, WP:RBI may also be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, I am about to file a case about you at Wikipedia:RFAR

I don't want to do it, since I am very busy, but your editing ill befits an admin. If you have something to say about the way you are editing without NPOV, I'm all ears. ► RATEL ◄ 06:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see anything I've done wrong, but you're welcome to file a case. If this is in regard 350 (organization), I haven't used any admin tools (other than rollback, which is sometimes considered an admin tool). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say I agree with your proposal to AfD Cyclic permutation of integer. I was about to make the same suggestion, when I saw that you were ahead of me ! It is a badly structured stack of unsourced and mostly trivial arithmetic manipulations with a few references thrown in at the end to lend it credibility; the few parts worth keeping can be added to cyclic number, repeating decimal or parasitic number. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag the edits that user:snowdude1492 made to Oxyhydrogen as vandalism? oxy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxyhydrogen&diff=next&oldid=318717619 His last edit seems legit, with a citation to a legitimate reliable source. This was clearly an honest effort to improve the page, and not vandalism. Your tag resulted in an indefinite block to a new user, and an IP block to the entire campus of The Bentley School where I teach (snowdude1492 is one of my students).

If you have a problem with the quality of the content he added or even the source he used, go ahead and contest THAT, with an explanation in the summary tag, or on the talk page. But PLEASE, assume good faith. If you are an administrator with unblock authority, please unblock user:snowdude1492, and help remove the IP address unblock from our school. Thank you. Fredwerner (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly wrong, regardless of whether the source supports it. If the source supports it, it's not vandalism. (The IP block will end within 24 hours of the last attempt of the attempt to edit through the block. If you will certify that it's a school IP, I'll turn off the autoblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still clearly inappropriate; none of those sources, except the FTC source, are allowed even as external links, and the FTC source only supports that no official tests are done (not no official tests have been done.) But I'll unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The productivity of the comment I left on that talk page was understood by the Admin I was aiming it at. Why so serious? - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it related to improving the article? If not, it shouldn't be there. If so, could you explain how? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I cannot explain humor to you, nor will I attempt it. Happy reverting!! Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You just left a message on my Talk page. The issue above is Closed, so what do you want of me? Be specific, so I can comply if I agree with your concern. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was closed, but your last posts indicate that you do not understand what was said — at least in the same way as I believe the WP:CONSENSUS interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps I should have opened a seperate section, but that might lead other readers of the thread to believe that I believed your last statements in the thread were accurate representations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm required to assume WP:Good faith. But your making it at all possible. Why don't stop generalizing and be specific. You're now only saying "you're bad." that's totally useless, and extremely "disruptive" to my work at Wikipedia. Just tell me exactly what it is you want from me - because I absolute have no idea - unless I assume "bad faith" on your part. I'm now disparately trying to maintain the vopposite. I can see some light at the end of the tunnel by your expression of doubt. But I still have no idea what you want of me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Protocols
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Versions of The Protocols Contemporary imprints of The Protocols
First publication of The Protocols
Programma zavoevaniya mira evreyami
Writers, editors, and publishers associated with The Protocols
Carl Ackerman Boris Brasol G. Butmi Charles Coughlin Natalie de Bogory Denis Fahey Henry Ford L. Fry H. A. Gwynne Harris Houghton Pavel Krushevan Ernest G. Liebold Sergei Nilus George Shanks Fyodor Vinberg Clyde J. Wright
Debunkers of The Protocols
Vladimir Burtsev Herman Bernstein Norman Cohn John Shelton Curtiss Philip Graves Michael Hagemeister Pierre-André Taguieff Lucien Wolf
Commentaries on The Protocols
The International Jew Mein Kampf

I'm a much respected editor at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm an expert on this piece of garbage (the so-called "Warrant for Genocide"). In 1920 The Beckwith Company company was apparently explicitly created to publish this text when the reputable Boston house dropped the title. And - unfortunate as that is - "world domination" was put on the title page of this tract. The lead of the title of this hateful work is Praemonitus Praemunitus, which means, "Praemonitus praemunitus." So please be more careful when you revert my work. By the way, I just noticed that you're also one of the Administrators at Wikipedia. I therefore also ask you to be particular careful because of a possible conflict of interest. Thanks (Shalom). --Ludvikus (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why that should be on the book's article, but not the publisher's article. Can you explain further? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. The Anti-Semites who brought this Warrant for Genocide to the United States could no longer get a descent publisher to publish their "work" after the First American edition hit the streets. The American Jewish Committee worked hard to expose this phoney "document" through the legal means at their disposal. Louis Marshall was the head at the time. Therefore, an unincorporated entity was created as a cover for this kind of trash. This publishing "house" pretended that there was a man named "Beck," and published another work under "his" name. But it's really extremely important only due to the fact that it was like the sperm that turned into Adolf Hitler - my metaphor reminds me of the fact that Hitler's connection here is no accident - according to Norman Cohn. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: If you need to know that I know about this hateful "literature" against the Jews, you might be informed by studying the template to the right. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think (as I now posted on the article's talk page, as this seems to be a more-or-less polite discussion on the content of the article), that the appropriate place to note the "World Domination" comment would be on an article on that edition, or on the editions in general and differences between them at Protocols of the Elders of Zion (versions). (That article needs some clerical work, as the two United States sections should be combined, at the very least, as well as possible content errors.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency: I'm working on it, and trying to understand you better. But I believe the article has just been Vandalized to support the Contents of the idea of The Protocols. So could you discuss this stuff there, and take the appropriate action? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider my posting of Bill Clinton vandalism? Aavwiki (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was US-centric WP:TRIVIA. See WP:NOT (This is about an edit to 42) Verbal chat 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "In politics" Section was added to see if other nations would have some "42" related entries. As for trivia, I would say that it corresponds to the "In sports" "Jackie Robinson" entry.

Aavwiki (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the Bush's really are known as "41" and "43" in some circles, but no one refers to Clinton as "42". I think none of the other Presidents are actually known by their number. And retired numbers are allowed in #... in sports sections; Jackie Robinson is more noted than most, as the project guidelines say that any number retired by a top-level professional team may be listed.

Also, all the other entries are (or should be) cardinal numbers, such as 42, rather than [[ordinal numbers (linguistic)|]s, such as 42nd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nolo contendere.

Aavwiki (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the unveiling of Bill Clinton's official portrait at the White House, George W. Bush (With Bush Sr. in attendance) mentioned that he and his father wimsicially refer to themselves as "43" and "41" respectively. He then went on to say "It's a great pleasure to honor number 42."

A transcript of the speech is available here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40670-2004Jun14_2.html

Vbartilucci (talk) 12:21 21 October 2009(UTC)

Hi,

As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.

Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.

Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Peregrine981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arthur,

There is concern about your rebuttal of the opinion of another editor at the 2012 talk page earlier this year, in which you invoked "the agreement of CalendarWatcher and myself"; yet there is no evidence of direct interaction between you and the CalendarWatcher account.

I wonder whether you are able to point to where this agreement with CalendarWatcher was developed. Tony (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no interaction that I can recall, except possibly on WT:YEARS. We each agreed (on different talk pages, if I recall) that the fiction sections of the 2012 articles cannot be separated; whether in 2012, or in a separate article, was left open. There were no arguments presented that they could be separated, that I can recall. For what it's worth, I believe the merge discussion(s) got lost at some point; perhaps some of the subpages of 2012 doomsday predictions (or whatever it's called, now) got lost. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This testy exchange was only six months ago, and you have presented what appears to be an agreement between you an the CalendarWatcher account in no uncertain terms.

User:Jim62sch wrote: "Who in the world put that tag on? Anyway, the answer is no. Final answer."

Your response was "The section merge tag is based on (1) the status quo ante, and (2) the agreement of CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs) and myself. You are in no position to say "no",..."

It is quite specific: the agreement; not even an agreement. It would be odd indeed for "the agreement" to have been struck without a single direct interaction between you and the CalendarWatcher account. You seemed sure at the time, but your answer today appears vague. I note, too, that the CalendarWatcher account played no part in the correction of the tag and appears not to have been alerted to this section; nor did it of its own accord make a comment in this thread, which had cited its "agreement".

I am sorry to press this matter: it is of great importance that it be resolved. Can you point to what constituted "the agreement" that was used as such a forceful argument to rebut Jim62's objection—even if it was the unlikely scenario in which you and CalendarWatcher "agreed" with the notion of merging or the posting of the merge tag in this article, but without actually conferring? Tony (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point me to the date I said that, I'll try to find the discussion(s) which supported that statement, but I'm afraid I would feel obligated to point out, in any formal (or as formal as Wikipedia gets), that Jim62 misunderstood (and later, misrepresented) the clear meaning of the merge tags, and so his interpretation of anything else is suspect.

I'm afraid further discussion might have to go to an RFC, as I would have to argue that Jim62 intentionally (in the legal sense — "knew or should have know") misrepresented the clear meaning of the merge tags — that only the fiction sections were to be merged, as the section attribute was on both merge tags, and in the discussion. I didn't want to bring the matter up, per AGF. but… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, that would be much appreciated. I must explain that the matter in question is your relationship with the CalendarWatcher account; Jim62sch plays only the bit part here. The link at the opening of this section (the target is not yet archived) points to a thread in April. Your quoted statement was on 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC). Tony (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rechecking all the threads I can find, the agreement here seems to be with Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs), rather than CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs), in Talk:2012#WTF (or: Doomsday-related material). I probably interacted with CW on Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the Year, and possibly other Wikipedia:WikiProject Time subprojects and tasks, but I can't find any direct interaction in 2009. (Some talk threads did get lost in the multiple moves and autoarchiving of the article now named 2012 phenomenon, which is a likely place for this discussion to have taken place.) I'm pretty sure that CW and I have both been enforcing similar interpretations of the more restrictive notability requirements for entries in the year and day-of-year articles, but I don't recall interacting directly with him/her.

Talk:2012 as of the end of April seems to confirm that interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I'm afraid I don't understand the issues involved nor why I'm supposed to be involved. I also must say that I'm not happy with the not-well-concealed implication on my talk page that I'm some sort of sock puppet. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you seem to be involved seems to be (based on the logs from 6 months ago) that I used your name when the correct editor name was Cosmic Latte. Perhaps the implication is that I knew the two of you were the same. In any case, I don't understand the issues involved or why it would be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider this edit inappropriate? That site is useful. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site is useful, but I can't find credentials for the author/editor, and the link would need to indicate which entry the link is for. Credentials may not be necessary for an EL, but we would still need to indicate which entry (or entries) are referenced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which entry the link is for seems obvious: regression. That's what it says. I don't see how there could be confusion about that. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur FYI it seems to me that Ratel is reinserting the same material into the Paltridge article about "luck". I am pretty sure that there was a firm consensus and agreement from yourself, Kevin, others that these were violations and he was asked to desist. Evidently, he doesn't think so and he's at it again... I don't know what to do here... should I just give in? See here. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Rubin: So I see you caught my out-of-process move. I just couldn't figure out that deletion review and didn't think anyone would notice. Can you put the article about Endgame into the deletion review process? I'd like to see what happens, the arguments, and so on. I have several opinions on the matter and would like to see what other Wikipedians are going to say. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the deleting administrator, as the first step of WP:DRV. Please see User talk:Tom harrison#End Game (2007 film) informal review, and watch that space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: would it be possible to do the DRV then? Varks Spira (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How's it going? Endgame seems to be having a particularly difficult time keeping itself alive around here. Where did it go and how can it make its way over to DRV? Does it need to be moved somewhere? Varks Spira (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started now; sorry about the delay. Please give reasons why it doesn't meet WP:CSD#G11 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 17#Endgame (2007 film), following the normal talk page conventions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I responded on the deletion page. Varks Spira (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand why you removed the edits on the quackwatch page? The entire article is a commercial for one man who has made his living as a front for the AMA, promoting their agenda, which was found to be illegal in Wilk et al v AMA et al, long ago. But he claims this is not true on his website. In 2005, under cross examination in a California Court he gave testimony admitting that he WAS connected with the AMA; that he was not a Psychiatrist (as he had failed the Board exam) and that he had been running around the country suing about 40 parties and lost ALL suits.

In the interest of balance, isn't it fair reporting to show the negative side of someone who has disrupted so many lives and for whom it is res judicata that he is not what he claims? Drsjpdc (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of balance, isn't it fair reporting to show that his comments are generally accepted by the scientific community, even if not by the alt-med community. It's not true that "he has made his living as front for the AMA", although the AMA's actions were found illegal (as an anti-trust violation, rather than as actual fraud) in Wilk v. AMA. The incorrect case you quote as his not being a psychiatrist is false; it's still not a requirement that a psychiatrist pass the board exam in order for him to practice or claim to be a psychiatrist; and he has not lost all suits; at least two were settled, he claims they were in his favor, and the other parties do not disagree.

As for the the fact that he is not a board certified psychiatrist, that should be irrelevant as to the question of whether he is an expert psychiatrist. The judge committed clear error if that was the basis for his opinion. If it was not the basis of (the judge's) opinion, as reported by a third party, it should not be in his article.

Finally, all of this should be in his article, if at all legitimate, rather than in Quackwatch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific BLP ruling was that the statement that he was not a board-certified psychiatrist needed (under WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE) to also include the statement that only 33% of practicing psychiatrists were board-certified at the time he failed the exam, and he had retired as a practicing psychiatrist. With all those caveats, it was decided to be inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, that is very interesting. And, i appreciate the clarification. I shall be more vigilant in the future, especially in relation to this source of information. Regardless, however there IS a great deal of controversy about this Barrett, who is a self appointed slanderer of all things not "orthodox" medicine. He HAS been sued several times, and I understand that some of those were successful and recently he was Ordered to pay a rather large sum of damages. All I want is a fair and balanced reportage. Can you help? Drsjpdc (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drsjpdc, it should also be noted that the author of your source is not a trustworthy source of information. He has been indefinitely banned here by the Arbitration Committee and his attempts to spread his libelous war against Barrett to Wikipedia has been a failure because of his deceptiveness and his unreliable accusations. He has admitted under sworn deposition that some of his major libels are "euphemisms". The problem is that he states them as fact and his readers believe it. I understand why you, as a chiropractor, might not like Barrett, but don't use that attitude here. It's unhelpful and unwikipedian. Such attempts will only detract from your reputation as an editor and as a chiropractor. You will need all the friends you can get here, and if you adhere to our editing guidelines and edit collaboratively, we are prepared to support you.

BTW, I suggest you place a NOINDEX code on the top of all subpages here that function as commercials for yourself. Google is listing them. Wikipedia isn't a personal website. Here is the code -- {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}} -- and here are the pages to place it on: User:Drsjpdc/Stephen_J._Press & User:Drsjpdc/Stephen_J._Press2 & User:Aditya/Stephen_J_Press. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullrangifer, Thanks for the heads up... I didn't realize that was happening. I will place the -- {{NOINDEX|visible = yes}} -- on the pages I was constructing, especially as I understand that my doing an autobiography on WIKI is a nono. I really had no idea that Adithya was working on a page with my bio... presumably on the idea that if a World Governing Body in Sport I founded is "notable", then perhaps, so am I. I think it would be presumptuous for me to interfere in HIS project in any way, there were enough issues with my initially creating that page as a newbie. Drsjpdc (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I quite agree that Barrett is controversial. But most of the controversy doesn't relate to QW, and, per WP:BLP, any controversial statemsnts about Barrett must come from a reliable, secondary source. Parties involved in a lawsuit with Barrett cannot be used, even if they would normally be considered reliable as experts per WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

1. (cur) (prev) 17:10, 13 October 2009 Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (61,315 bytes) (Undid revision 319643708 by Tarantulae (talk) GBL doesn't seem notable) (undo)

1. (cur) (prev) 16:18, 13 October 2009 Tarantulae (talk | contribs) m (61,435 bytes) (Added link to a demonstration of the GBL in Primes) (undo)

Can you define what is "notable" to you ? There is almost nothing new with prime numbers for centuries and you remove a little contribution ?

Please, exemplify what kind of things can be notable or not in prime numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarantulae (talk • contribs) 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benford's Law (although I actually don't recall seeing under that name) is somewhat notable. The GBL as stated follows immediately (as an approximate statement) from the prime number theorem and appropriate integration or summation methods. Possibly, some of the other external links are prime number trivia, and should be removed also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the link to Benford's law is tenuous, but I tend to err on the side of including too much than too little. --TMC1221 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The period of reciprocal of prime and group theory are related and the relationship is revealed by a simple rationale below:

When the reciprocal of a prime is converted to decimal, the successive remainders in a long division are necessary to be less than p. Since there could be not more than (p - 1) remainders, thus the maximum order, which represents the period, is (p - 1). In group theory, if (Zp, *) represents multiplicative group of integers modulo p, then a cyclic subgroup S is generated by 10. The order of subgroup, which represents the period of the repeating decimal, shall divide the order of the group, which is (p - 1). Now, does group theory gives an answer?

--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True (marginally). Monoid theory is probably closer. But "subgroups" is still wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can not understand why you deleted writing ", and group theory". --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been a mistake; I'm still looking for a Wikipedia article on the concept I know as monoid theory. If I can find it, that is the appropriate link, rather than group theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MTV Generation‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Law Lord (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this: "Reverted to revision 319901932 by Ludvikus; remove timing of Protocols of Zion AGAIN; as no dates appear in this section, there's no need." I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain - and on the article's Talk page. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained; the publication history of The Protocols of Zion have nothing to do with related conspiracy theories much later than we can all agree that it reached Western eyes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please try to correct your habit of labelling actions "vandalism" and reverting before carefully considering what you are doing. You've done that to me TWICE and then reversed yourself after actually considering what you've done. "vandalism" Oops, not vandalism more "vandalism" Oops, once again, I'm half asleep ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits are unjustified, although not necessarily vandalism. (I'm not saying they're not vandalism, either, at this time.) I actually believe the first edit in question (adding ... Conspiracy Theory) was intended as being disruptive, even though I can see a justification for it (now apparently opposed by consensus). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So adding the appropriate See also was both justified yet also disruptive? Sweet Jeebus, I could say something rude to you, but I know you'd simply use your extra buttons to take revenge. ► RATEL ◄ 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you appear to be engaged in an editing dispute on Halting problem. I see too that you and the other editor have discussed this on the talk page, but apparently not come to a consensus. It would be helpful if you could discuss the issue with the other editor before reverting eachother anymore, since you both have apparently done so twice in a short amount of time. Shadowjams (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful. He's brought up the issue before (possibly more than once), and he is the only editor who has stated that his approach is better. Perhaps we could go to WP:3O if we can work from the stable version without quining. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. What about the Mathematics Portal/Project page? Obviously on technical topics the audience will be smaller, but there are probably enough eyes on the Math project. Good luck. Shadowjams (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am under no restrictions, I have not violated 3RR, and we are not yet in an edit war (I hope it doesn't happen). Stop posting nonsense to my talk page. I know your position, and I hope to get third opinions to resolve this dispute.Likebox (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will have violated 3RR if you revert my third revert. You replaced "input" by "quining" before in 2008, so one could make a good case that your first edit today was a revert. In any case, I've reinstated your lead, but with a "disputed" tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, you are the expert everywhere. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed major reforms to decade articles

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities which include, for example, factories, offices, schools, hospitals, roads, railway and other infrastructure are the built environment. Education in the field of facility/facilities management is normally found within university faculties/schools of the built environment. Those who work in facilities, such as facility managers, and others would consider that they are concerned with the built environment. Brianatkin (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you remove this link: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression under reasons of being inapproriate? how could this be not approriate? Seb-Gibbs (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO points 2 and 12. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 350 (organisation), you will be blocked from editing. ► RATEL ◄ 23:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 350 (organisation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Large removals of data without discussion ► RATEL ◄ 23:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of large amounts of trivia, with explainations why it's removed in edit summaries and on the talk page, is not vandalism nor necessarily inappropriate. I acknowledge the 3RR problem, but you are probably closer to 3RR than I am at this point, if you haven't gone over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super-root. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Robo37 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tetration. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Robo37 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked. You still have one more revert than I do. However, thanks for the warning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I know you have an exceedingly math-oriented mind. Please see a thread here on the talk page of Jc3s5h. Can you answer the question? I think it is inescapable that power must be expended (given a theoretically 100% efficient machine) to elevate one kilogram and float it above the ground. The question is not whether “work” is being performed (the kilogram isn’t being raised higher above the ground); the question is “how much power must be expended in the effort to simply counter gravity once one pulls the table out from under the kilogram mass?” My instinct is that it takes 9.80665 watts (using a 100% efficient electromechanical coil) to counter one standard gravity (9.80665 m/s²), which makes a downward weight of 9.80665 newtons, and by expending 9.80665 watts, one can generate an equal countering force to make the kilogram hover.

I know it requires some amount of power to elevate the kilogram; it clearly isn’t going to float on its own. But the algebra just isn’t working out at all for me (you can see that on the above-linked page) for me to confirm how much power is truly required. Of course, I could keep it hovering over the ground with a 20%-efficient remote-controlled toy helicopter. I have no doubt too, that I can keep it floated using a superconducting solenoid with electrical power running through it. Essentially, it would be a railgun, where, if it were sideways, it would shoot the “projectile” horizontally. Instead, it is aimed upwards, where we now have a Watt balance. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Another hunch: I suspect that the SI unit of measure for impulse, the newton-second, might be able to make the algebra work here. Suppose we say that we use 1 N·s of impulse (which is the measure of rocket-motor performance) per second in order to levitate a one kilogram mass in a gravitational field one 1 m/s². Since 1 N·s = 1 kg·m/s (which is per the Newton-second article), then 1 N·s/s = 1 N = 1 kg·m/s² (which is per the Newton article). I don’t have it all here, but is there enough here for you to algebraically tie it all together now? Would a 100% efficient, superconducting watt balance be using 9.80665 watts to hover the weight of one kilogram under one standard gravity by imparting an impulse into the kilogram of 9.80665 newton-seconds per second (9.80665 N)?

I suspect we can solve this by calculating the momentum not imparted into the kilogram over the course of a first second by not allowing it to free-fall. Yes? By imparting 9.80665 newton-seconds of impulse for one second, we prevented 9.80665 kg·m/s of momentum to develop. Moreover, we did so over one second (9.80665 kg·m/s²). I still can’t quite get to the watt. But I hope this helped. Greg L (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. In any case, the energy or work required to raise a 1 kg mass one meter can be determined by the potential energy added in the lift. The force certainly can be infinitessimally more than the force required to get it to hover, but may be less. I'm thinking about gravitational transfer orbits in which less energy is required by the spacecraft than is apparently needed, as momentum is transferred from passing planets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I contacted a Ph.D. physicist at a major university here and am awaiting an answer.

My thought experiment is that if one takes a 1-kilogram rocket with a thrust of 9.8 newtons, and put it into space, its on-board accelerometer will read one gee with the engine running and zero gee with the engine off. The chemical energy from the fuel going into the rocket engine provides impulse (N•s), which adds momentum (N•s) and kinetic energy (J) as rocket fuel (W) is consumed. Now…

If one takes this same rocket and put it on a launch pad, light the engine, and pull the rug out from under it, the on-board accelerometer will still read one gee. (Of course, it would read one gee with the engine off, but rigid scaffolding like bridges clearly don’t require a fill-up of fuel to support things so this is beside the point. Besides, it’s easy enough to make the accelerometer read zero near earth: just drop it; which is to say, allow it to float in warped time-space.) Einstein wrote that inertial acceleration and gravitational acceleration are not only indistinguishable, they are absolutely identical in all respects; even down to the way a light beam bends.

Let’s compare the two outcomes: In space, the rocket gains kinetic energy and momentum as the impulse of thrust does its magic. On earth these newtonian phenomenon (“work”, “momentum”, etc.) remain unchanged while the rocket fires. Yet, in both circumstances (zero gee or earth’s surface), rocket fuel is being expended at a known rate (liters per second) and that means chemical power (watts) is being expended. Now, power is power (chemical, mechanical, electrical). The difference between the two outcomes (space and earth’s surface) as far as added kinetic energy lies, I think, in whether one looks at the physics from a fixed-frame, newtonian point of view or looks at it from the point of view of Einstein (where the rocket accelerates through time-space regardless if it is in a “zero gee” frame of reference or an “earth’s surface” frame of reference where time-space is warped.

This, at least, is my hypothesis and my thought experiment. All the algebraic derivatives I can come up with don’t support this hypothesis because I can’t make them match the classic SI definition of the watt or any of its derivatives. The Ph.D. researcher at the NIST who is working on the watt balance e-mailed me that he considers the power in the watt balance to be “virtual” power. Hmmm. Yet the NIST press release refers to how the watt balance compares mechanical power to electrical power. I don’t know; perhaps I’m full of crap. Greg L (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arthur,

Thank you so much for the important work you've been doing to make 10:10 an encyclopedia-standard article. You make a real difference, especially given that there are only a few people who have added to the article so far.

Just to clear something up - are we both of the same opinion that figures reported as fact in a national newspaper can be reported as fact in Wikipedia (when referenced)? Note this is entirely and absolutely distinct from figures claimed by a non-reliable independent campaign website.

Also, I am sorry my recent edit wasn't up to scratch - I will spend a few minutes now replacing the changes I made which are unrelated to the number of signatories, assuming that this is something you are happy with.

I hope that this suits you. Many thanks, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arthur,

I really don't want to move too fast, and I am happy for you to replace the numbers of signatories with the old Guardian article, however, I have seen today's Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/18/1010-liberal-democrats-commons-motion

I think at the moment, that this serves as a reliable, third-party published source of the number of signatories. I will put this provisionally into the article. I truly hope you don't see this as moving too fast.

Best wishes, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks somewhat questionable, in fact. Please note the following paragraph:

• The campaign, which is supported by the Guardian, asks businesses, organisations and individuals to pledge to cut their carbon emissions and thereby place pressure on the government to commit the country to similar action. Since it was launched last month, more than 35,000 people, 1,200 businesses and 850 schools and organisations have joined.

Because of the support, it seems we need an independent source for the supporter count. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arthur,

This is important, and your pointing this out is highly valuable. I think it's vital that we do assess all of our sources for exactly this sort of potential conflict of interest. That said, I'm not absolutely sure about this word "support". The Guardian has signed up to the campaign, and publishes articles about it, but it has no say in the management or organisation of the campaign; its articles are also subject to an editorial code assuring the intention of accuracy. It is a mainstream British newspaper. Could it still report a figure which is untrue? Might there be a meaningful conflict of interest within a newspaper which supports, but is independent from, a political campaign?

Thank you so much for your speedy reply!! Many thanks, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'd encourage reporters to lie; but they might encourage reporters to trust affiliated organisations. Furthermore, some of the sourced phrases have no place in a real news (or encyclopedia) article. These include:

1. "major and diverse public figures and organisations"
2. "Dozens of high-profile individuals"
3. "consist of large variety of groups"

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the three quotes you have brought to light, and I apologise if I have written them. Thank you, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful that you've posted on the Discussion page of the article - that's a perfect place to get this sorted. Hope to see you there! All the best, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a head ups. I've just reverted the lead of inflation to the more neutrally worded version from a few weeks back before PennySeven started going to work on it. I'm guessing that you would agree with me on this? Leave me a message. Thanks, regards LK (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I never liked the word "eroded", even if properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better than 'destroyed' I think. 'Reduced' would be an even more neutral term, but 'eroded' has been there for some time, so that's what I reverted to. Please leave a yay or nay on the talk page, as Pennyseven is accusing me of being the only one who found his recent additions problematic. Thanks, LK (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

have tried to correct and update the wiki entry, to no avail! - thanks for your conscientious approach to this, and apologies in advance for this lengthy intervention. i am actually the person whom the wiki entry is supposed to be about and have tried to edit it appropriately. would be grateful for your assistance on how to do this properly. i'm also a little confused about the standards you're using on the acceptability of the sources and want to know how to proceed. may i just emphasise that this is the first time i'm trying to address this wiki entry, as i've recently found that people have been using it for my bio info even in my professional life, which is rather annoying as it's outdated and slightly inaccurate. i've just found that the wiki entry comes up quite high up in google searches on my name, which explains why people are relying on it for info about me - hence my interest in trying to get it up to scratch.

firstly, the current entry says that i teach IR at Sussex. this is no longer true. my main position is as director of a think-tank, the IPRD. i did include a source for that in the entry (perhaps in the wrong place?) - which is the link to my bio on the IPRD website; not sure how a better source for that could be produced?

i've also finished doctoral research - the reversion to the old version which says i am currently teaching at sussex and doing doctoral research is therefore false, yet you insist on keeping this! i've also included my academic profile from sussex uni which clarifies this. those changes seem to me to be pretty important as far as accuracy is concerned.

more broadly, the characterisation of areas of expertise and my doctoral research are oversimplistic, which is why i tried to correct them but as briefly as possible. you've reverted those changes too, and i'd like to emphasise that the old version isn't accurate.

i tried to identify myself as a bestselling author in the opening and linked to the amazon.com page for my book, where it specifies the same - you've said that the "actual book should be used", but i'm not sure what you mean? i understand if you think adding bestselling here is inappropriate and a form of self-advertising! however, it's factually true and i feel it's a significant description of what i am and do - i've found the link to my publisher here http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=984 - would that be more appropriate?

in terms of the other sources used, i see someone's already put a link directly to the US National Archives website where my first book is listed as part of the 9/11 Commission special collection - this is a strong source. on the mention of my having testified in congress, i cannot find many online sources you might consider to be acceptable - except perhaps this link http://www.911truth.org/downloads/McKinney-911Commission-OneYearLater.pdf. unfortunately this is the only website i've found which has put the transcript of the hearing online, but at least the transcript is there containing my testimony too for verification. there's also no specific online source saying that my submissions were entered into the congressional record - although true, we could probably just remove that particular sentence rather than keeping it with a 'citation needed' note.

i also added a few more bits of media work that i've done. for that you've said that a citation is needed and i added a link to one of my profiles on the IPRD and/or Sussex University. how can either of those links be unacceptable as sources for information about me!? surely the best source for info about a person is the orgs where they have or are currently working? i also added links to those profiles in the external links, and can't see a valid reason for removing them, as they actually link to more accurate and updated info about me, including a full bibliography of my written works (at the sussex website).

i hope this clarifies the edits - i'm sorry if i haven't understood something here, or have failed to adhere to wikipedia standards, but after reading around some of the rules about editing content it seems to me that at least some of my edits should be kept, and i'd be grateful if we could come to work toward making my entry more accurate.

if we can't make it accurate, then i'd prefer the entire page to be deleted.

thanks in advance for your attention!

--94.195.202.217 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Nafeez[reply]

WP:AUTO and WP:COI suggest you should not be editing your own article, but I can see your frustration. On the other hand, some "Truthers" seem to have little regard for the truth even in regard other "truthers", so we have to be careful.

As for the specific points you brought up:

• "Best-selling" requires a source which specifically says you are a best-selling author; reference to actual sales figures is not adequate.
• The IPRD site should be adequate to source your working there. I think the main site should be in the External Links, and your bio should be a reference supporting the statement of your position there in the lede.
• The actual {{cite book}} template should be used rather than a link to amazon, although the publisher's entry on the book might be a useful URL. It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the {{cite book}} template, so perhaps it should be left out.
• The characterization of your areas of expertise and doctoral research probably should be removed, rather than supplied by you, per WP:COI. If you add a {{disputed-inline}} tag at that point, I'll see what I can do.
• I don't have a good feeling about http://www.911truth.org/ as a reliable source, even for copies of official documents. The table of contents doesn't look official to me, even if the testimony is, so that seems a bit more questionable than most. As for the Congressional Record, it should be possible to find an actual volume and page, even if it's not available online.

  However, I'm not sure appearing in the Congressional Record is notable. Some tax protesters (note, this is not people who protest taxes; these are people who deny the legality of taxes) refer to a speech made by a Representative which was put into the Record without actually having any existence other than being added by that Representative to the record; there's no evidence that anyone else saw or heard it before or since (other than from the Record). It's quoted as evidence that Congress doubted the validity of the United States income tax.

• Media that you've done could be added in the #Works section, but probably should not be added (at least by you) in the body.

and

• I'm not sure some of the references in the main text are to reliable sources, even so. If you can replace [URL] with <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> or other appropriate templates, that would be appreciated, even from the subject of the article. Such changes would make it easier to see which sources are published, which are allowable because they're written by you, and which are totally unsuitable for the article.

As for where I sit, I think your work is, shall we say, bovine excrement, but I'm willing to help you get a fair article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur: LOL. Thanks for the responses and clarifications. I won't get a chance now to edit the entry until around mid-November, and will try my best to stick to the rules you've outlined when i do get time to try my hand - thanks for bearing with me! I understand the caveats about me myself editing some of these points on wikipedia and will make sure to respect the boundaries.

BTW, your characterisation of the entirety of "my work" as BS is perhaps slightly more revealing of your own lack of familiarity with it (I mean, what exactly are you talking about, my work on al-Qaeda, Iraq, IR theory, globalization, genocide studies, Marxism, Islamism, etc. etc.? I can't believe you've read all my published work and hate all of it, which would make you some sort of masochistic stalker!) My sense is that you've gathered some generic impression of "my work" from so-called 9/11 "truthers", particularly as at the beginning of your comments you refer to "truthers" as if this has some relevance to me. I don't consider myself a "9/11 truther" and have serious reservations about the so-called 9/11 "truth movement", even if people in this movement have used my work (some of my work is also recommended by people who think this "truth movement" is little more than a cult - such as www.911cultwatch.org.uk) That's another reason why this wiki entry annoys me, as I remember one of the older versions actually had me listed as a member of the 9/11 "truth movement" and proceeded to misrepresent my actual arguments. Anyway, I genuinely appreciate your evenhandedness and willingness to help despite your negative perceptions of "my work." --94.195.202.217 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Nafeez[reply]

My apologies about referring to you as a "truther". I believe I started watching your article because of truther or anti-truther vandalism. (I honestly can't remeber which. We really did have an editor who added many "truthers" to the "terrorist" category.) It should be noted that another person "falsely" categorized as a truther contacted me off-wiki and sent me a videotape of an interview, but there I was attempting to remove both truther and anti-truther propaganda from his article. (He's clearly associated with 9/11, and has (according to him) been misquoted as one of the "explosion" people.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you start the process of trying to get User:Ludvikus banned from Wikipedia, I will support you 100%. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to remind an administrator this, but please don't label good-faith contributions as vandalism, as you did when mass-reverting 99.155.156.1. This is made clear in WP:VAND and WP:CIVIL and I see you have been notified several times above. And this response to a legitimate suggestion was appalling. Totally unbecoming of an administrator. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As can easily be seen, it's the same person, although a different IP, who has made the suggestion before. WP:AGF only goes so far. It has been informed that tangentially related articles and categories should not be included, especially those related better through another article or category which is already included. Most of the changes from the latest incarnation of the IP were plausible, although the multiplicity of recently-created-categories produces some overlap. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Sorry if I over-reacted. A brief message on the IP's talk page or even a simple edit summary could have made the history clear to others. It might make more sense to simply revert such talk page additions, rather than leaving other editors wondering why the terse response.

You might be interested in this mass rollback script, which facilitates quick reversion of all an IP's edits. I don't think it allows an edit summary though, so you'd need to leave a talk page message. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for the above. That I didn't know - and now have learned of it from you. What bizarre thing happened at Berne, regarding Copyrights - do we have an article on that? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't at Berne, it was the US response to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. There was a transition period of about 15 years in which no copyrights ended, and some copyrights were extended beyond both the periods that would have been in effect both before and after the final decision. But, apparently, the transition started in 1979, and the copyright of something published in 1920 would have expired by 1976 (even if there were a copyright notice), so you're safe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand why the yellow box in the discussion page says to read the insturcitions if youy want to delte it. it doesn't say to do so for restoring it. so others should read that box! —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a delete. It may be the case that a case could be made for restoration, but it hasn't been made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow box says

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination:

The yellow box does not say

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussion if you are considering recreating it:

Since that discussion was well over a year ago, when President Obama was a 2nd place candidate, we should reconsider having the First Daughter featured. Besides, many articles have been written about her and excluding the President.

Maybe you should put back the page and then ask for a new deletion debate. Otherwise, it can never be recreated, even if Malia becomes a Congresswoman then later President. The deletion debate did not set a criteria. Some people said "later" or "later" when she is First Daughter. She has been first daughter for closer to 1 year than 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs)

Nope. WP:DRV or bringing up the matter on the redirect's talk page is more appropriate than summarily overturning the delete result. But I don't think she's notable yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, you should be blocked if i am. didn't you read my comment about putting this up for AfD if you want to stealth delete via redirect? Please let's discuss on talk page. I ask that you reinstate page while discussion ensues. --Milowent (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blah. I did read your comment and the identical one from User:October 22 2009. It doesn't apply. The page should remain deleted until some evidence is provided that consensus has changed. The actual "notablility" has not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AR, when was the last AfD on this one. Only in May 2008? --Milowent (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? There's no evidence the consensus has changed. WP:DRV seems the proper domain to determine whether new evidence (not yet added by the dated editor) supports notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: moving my comment. No worries -- glad to have it at the right spot. cheers, --guyzero | talk 09:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation on Global Campaign for Climate Action. I didn't realize that the category was referring to a specific organization. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I am separately nominating the specific organization clusters for upmerge to Category:Action on climate change (which is still misnamed, but better than nothing). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this person's edits while patrolling recent changes in the category namespace, and your many reverts. For what it's worth, I agree with all of your reversions, both to the categories and articles. It's unfortunate there's no way to block him/her but they seem to edit so many different pages from so many IPs. • Anakin ^(talk) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order was on the New York Times Best Seller list: BEST SELLERS: November 10, 1991 - The New York Times. Doesn't that mean it was a best-selling book? --Loremaster (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Loremaster. And good find too. Thanks to you, I can now read the Review listing. So Arthur, do you still think Pat's book is no-notable? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes it 5th in nonfiction that week, although the html needs some more work. Oddly enough, WP:NB doesn't mention "bestseller lists", but it's certainly enough to remove the {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You used Twinkle to revert an edit on Inflation and labeled it as vandalism. However, the edit was clearly not vandalism. It's an ongoing content dispute. Regardless of whether there is consensus (however one defines that) or not, calling edits like that "vandalism" accomplishes nothing other than to inflame the situation and insult the person making the edit. I urge you to show more restraint in future edit summaries and keep the tone of the discussion more civil. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to disagree; an edit made against a clear consensus needs to be called something. Perhaps I can reconfigure Twinkle to just say "reverting clearly unjustified edit" without my having to explain further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to use an edit summary like we encourage everyone else to, then perhaps you shouldn't be making the edit. But what you're doing is worse than not using an edit summary, you're using the edit summary to actually negatively influence the tone of the discussion. The problem with calling "an edit made against a clear consensus" "vandalism" is that interpreting the first part is subjective, but in almost all accounts does not rise to vandalism. In fact, we even have a policy page that explains this. kmccoy (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My turn

I entirely agree with kmccoy above in your rather indiscriminate and intimidatory use of the term 'Vandalism'. I would point out the guideline states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Whilst I may agree with you in principle as to whether a given edit was appropriate or not according to our many policies and guidelines, it is clear that at least some of the instances are NOT vandalism. In the absence of a proper explanation from you, I would have to conclude indicate edits that you simply disagree with an edit by another editor. You, as an admin, should know this manner of editing is highly intimidating, and may deter contributions from new editors.

Concrete examples of your inappropriate edit summaries:

• You correctly removed linkspam with this edit. There's a lot of that going on in that article (and I see you already removed some before), but it's hardly vandalism. If you can use a proper edit summary before, there is no reason you cannot use it properly again as you appear to know the difference between the two.
• You arguably removed original research in a biography with this edit, but I would once again contest the validity of the 'Vandalism' label you used.
• It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits by a novice editor. As far as I can tell, this edit of yours signals a content dispute. You should have had the courtesy of making an entry to the relevant talk page.
• It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits at 4th Century. Again, there are no talk page messages anywhere. Thus, as far as I can tell, this is a content dispute.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag you restored states that the list is a biography. As it isn't one the tag doesn't belong. In any case it is poor practice to add or remove something controversial without weighing in on the discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The tag should read that the list contains biographical material. Perhaps a customization of the tag would be needed, but that might be considered "piling on", as it's likely that even the people who agree that it should be there wouldn't agree on the customization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is for BLPs. This isn't one. In any case, removal or addition without trying to discuss is the wrong thing to do, which I assume you know. WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active in the discussion, as well, and {{BLP dispute}} is for articles containing statements about living persons, not just articles about living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue, in addition, since statements about living persons are to remain out of articles unless there is consensus that they don't violate WP:BLP, that the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it doesn't apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem with you, Arthur, here: A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Please adhere to the policy regarding Tags. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem. You've misinterpreted WP:CONSENSUS so badly that your opinions on the issue as it applies to tags is <redacted>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Romm did indeed write the article that was linked to today, which link you deleted. However, I agree with you that we should not generally add ELs linking to Romm's articles on the blog. He posts several new articles to his blog every day. Also, as you'll see on the talk page, I replied to this anon editor: Romm fully supports McKibben. Their only disagreement is regarding the exact number that is achievable, and as to that, Romm says only that the facts are not yet certain. But he has been praising the goals and methods of McKibben's organization and McKibben himself. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I misunderstood what you said during the debate we were having in the Domhoff on conspiracy theories section of the [[Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)]] page. Here is what I meant to say: I'm not opposed to adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the Lead section but, as you can see from discussions in Archive 3, it was a major dispute that drove the Domhoff quote from the Lead section to the Alleged conspirators section. Do we really want to open that can of worms again? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please.

Meneer Burger (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I posted a reply on my user talk page. Could you also explain on my user page what the last sentence of your comment means? Thanks! FFLaguna (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I remade the edit on the Ban Ki-moon page, and it worked fine this time. I don't know how the URLs got screwed up. In any case, please swing by and explain what you meant by your last sentence on my user talk page. Thanks! :) FFLaguna (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonHoaxBat (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found enough mainstream press to show notability, I think. Why oh why can't article creators do that? Fences&Windows 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but I think Tachyonbursts is trying a different approach. You saw how his last sock was banned. However, not a day after that occurred that the user 'InnerParty' shows up and archives the thread, and gives me a barn star, despite not having edited before this point. Tachyonbursts has always complained that Wikipedia acts like a secret society, a cabal if you will, and a name like 'InnerParty' seems to fall in line with this idea. I wouldn't be surprised if this new guy is yet another sock, being used as a sort of 'spy' or 'infiltrator' to further troll us and the cabal he believes we belong to.

What are your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to problems with my home computer, I may often edit the article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48 so please do not automatically assume these anyonymous edits are not constructive and revert them. Thank you for your understanding. --Loremaster (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, what are your thoughts on what we do over at Garth Paltridge? As you've just asked, has anyone provided an argument for why a single line in Hamilton has weight sufficient to mention that Paltridge has spoken sometimes at conferences organised by Lavoisier. The answer, of course, is that no one has, and no one is going to (unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat with a new source we don't know about). What do we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't identify edits that you disagree with as "vandalism." The pages for "Faction" and "roman a clef" were changed because they identify the same literary device and the roman a clef page was more developed than the faction page. Please visit the following web page. http://wordsmith.org/words/roman_a_clef.html In the future, if you have a problem with edits that someone is trying to make to improve entries on Wikipedia, go to the discussion pages for the relevant articles and state your case. Labelling this as vandalism when it clearly is not is in and of itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be vandalism, but it is mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on faction refers to it retrospectively as applying to historical novels, while the other one is as applied to current novels. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2001-2010 is not part of the same decade.

the 2000s are: 2000-2009 the 2010s are: 2010-2019 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.24.171 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decade, and it's very similar to 2000s (decade). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, there's a lot of conflict on this page, and it's clear that sometimes your use of the term "vandalism" is upsetting people. Can you reconsider or ration your use of it, especially in edit summaries? As an admin, your role could emphasise leadership in creating linkages between editors much more, couldn't it? Tony (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]