User talk:Arthur Rubin

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 2012 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I'm starting law school August 13, 2011, so I almost certainly won't have much time to spend here, except during breaks. However, this does not mean that the Global Warming anon is safe. In fact, I may reverted the edits which are not helpful, instead of just the ones which are harmful.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Arthur Rubin,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shuipzv3 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested protection of movie articles

I've requested the three movie articles be protected. Seems like a waste of time to continue otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And they've been quickly protected. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cato editing

I edited the Cato page because I knew I'd seen the date and reference that it was originally founded by Charles Koch before 1977, from an article in The Nation. I looked for references for the earlier date and found more references in the blog pages of the Baltimore Sun. Then I found the Nation's source, the Hodai article, an expanded version of one originally published in In These Times and picked up by many other web publications afterward. Hodai's cite is to PDFs of the source documents that he has posted on his own website: dbapress.com

He is an exhaustive researcher. He has researched the Kochs before such as when he published his expose on the American Legislative Exchange Council and Arizona's SB 1070, the "Breathing While Brown" legislation, including the role of the now-recalled state Senate president Russ Pearce. He was the original author who discovered the entire story, published in March or June 2010, though it was repeated without attribution by a Phoenix TV reporter who was given credit for and accepted unearned national accolades for the research. I forget which channel it was where the guy worked, but he appeared on television in NY to receive plaudits for his supposed investigative reporting. In October of 2010, Laura Sullivan, a national NPR reporter from DC, expanded somewhat on Hodai's original, months old story and gave Hodai full credit and attribution for his work. Subsequent to that, NPR's "Talk of the Nation" had them both on a show about SB 1070, for a half-hour segment that I heard while driving somewhere.

Hodai's work has never been questioned by anyone, save I think, for a Texas hustler whom he exposed and who enlisted a "reputation defender," James Dozier, who threatened both him and the original publisher of another piece, this one on for-profit prisons, In These Times. The Texan threatened a number of other print and on-line publications and I think a Texas NPR reporter and some activists. He got no retractions or apologies, with responses requesting specifics as to what Dozier contended were inaccurate statements, as the guy had no case. I don't believe any of them ever got any examples of what was supposedly untrue from Dozier or his client.

You accept NY Times material without reservation, however, despite, i.e., the extensive planted propaganda under the bylines of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, the confabulations by Jason Blair, etc.

If that's not enough for you, please tell me exactly what you require. If this is sufficient, please revert the undo you did.

Thank youActivist (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A reputation for muckraking does not require a reputation for accuracy; and, as this involves living people, the publisher must have the reputation for accuracy for it to count. You still need to include the organizations' statements in the lead if they contradict even a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the below on my way out of the office a couple of hours ago, but for some reason it didn't post. When I got back there was a note from Wikipedia that my posting failed and that I needed to try to repost it or log out and log back in. It has the info you want. This writer has the original documents posted on his site, as below:Activist (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's your source documents: http://dbapress.com/source-materials-archive/koch-money-the-corporate-cash-that-oils-the-right-wing-%E2%80%9Cthink-tank%E2%80%9D-machine-koch-industries-americans-for-prosperity-americans-for-prosperity-foundation-reason-foundation-cato/cato-institutecharles-koch-foundation-incorporation-papers-and-bylaw Activist (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to the Cato Institute webpage. I've provided documentation previously.

Cato was clearly founded in (December) 1974, as I'd maintained, but the date that you and I accepted as credible (1977), as it came from Cato itself and was found at other sources, was also in error, as was your contention attributed to Charles Koch that it was founded in 1980, a date you supplied, if you are correct and haven't confused the similarly named entities. The name change from the Charles Koch Foundation to Cato occurred by action of the Foundation's board at its meeting of July 7th and 8th, 1976, with the amended documents filed with the Kansas Secretary of State on July 28th. I corrected the erroneous (1977) date as well along with the revert of your undo.Activist (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now Mr. Rubin, it appears that there is another editor who has seen your caution on the Cato Institute page and was moved to agree with you without bothering to check the documents I'd provided.

I am baffled as to why this can't be dealt with responsibly. Will you please remove that caution and undo the reverts, unless you can provide legitimate information as to why you feel the information I corrected is actually correct?

I left this for the latest editor to follow your lead:

Editing Cato Institute

I provided a URL to the website that contained corrections to entries on the Cato site. I provided an extensive rationale supporting my original edits to the original undoer, Arthur Rubin, prior to your latest revision/undo. I provided further information citing the specific documents. It seems that you, and he, find those publications for which that author writes to be less than reliable for purely arbitrary reasons. I have provided the URL for the original PDF articles of incorporation documents that verify the accuracy of my edits. Still you chose to undo my edits, reverting to the demonstrably incorrect information. I don't understand why your insistence on retaining and preserving misinformation is so important to you. Perhaps you and Rubin (I'll copy this to his Talk page) can explain?

The Koch brothers employ "minders" who scrub any (Wikipedia) pages referring to them in any way of any less than positive (even neutral) information. I don't see any indication that you're in their employ, at least from looking at the most recent page listing of your editing efforts. So, I'm baffled as to what your agenda is? Did you look at the sources I provided, or just do a whimsical undo?Activist (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the source documents your requested have been provided, could you remove your caution or block (not sure what it's called) and/or restore my edits with the URL I provided or replace them with your own language that reflects the documents? Thank you. Activist (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please see the talk page Jac16888 ^Talk 16:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have left a comment on both the article talk page before your last revert and RFPP in reply to your latest. I am very concerned by your behaviour with regards to this IP, by the looks of it all over the presence of a single wikilink, it is not what I would expect from an admin with your experience--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, there are at least two editors who agree that the link shouldn't be there. The anon has an established tendency toward adding Wikilinks with no or minimal relationships article, incorrect Wikilinks to subjects with the same name as the Wikilink but a completely different subject, etc. Once he starts adding them, he never stops, regardless of arguments presented.

And yes, I do follow him. Blocking him has been proposed, but it's been determined it's impossible because we'd have to block the entire city of Kalamazoo at the ISP to do so. It's not Wikistalking to revert even an established editor who fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misreading this but the way I see it, Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings is about some american thingy, created by the president in an Executive order. Executive order is about order's given by a head of government, i.e. the president. That doesn't seem to be incorrect or unrelated to me--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rational persons might differ, but Executive Order 13514 is already linked in the lead. A link to Executive order (note correct capitalization) would be superfluous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, doesn't tell me, as a non-american, or anyone else what an executive order is though--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to challenge the block; however, in fairness, the IP-hopping editor should also be blocked for 24 hours. His current IP assignment seems to have expired about 25 minutes ago (about 8 minutes after my block), so there's no way to block or warn except to watch for the pattern of edits, or to block the entire city of Kalamazoo, Michigan. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said on ANI, I didn't block the IP because he hadn't edited since 11 (UTC); another admin has semied the article, however... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the IP is not back yet, but he probably will be, shortly, unless he's gone to class. Most of the edits were from a library or a school library in Kalamazoo, but their IP isn't static, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The last IP assignment that I can see is 99.181.135.129 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), rather than the last editor to the Zero-Net article, 99.56.120.131 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Arthur Rubin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

It was a lame edit war. My only excuse is that there was a weak consensus that the anon editor (not IP) should be blocked, except that there was no technical ability to do it. I've been reverting those edits which I considered unhelpful. In this case, it appears I was wrong. In this case, I only used rollback because my Twinkle was out (someone — probably my anti-viral software — turned off my Javascript access), and I had given reasons for the revert previously, so I didn't think a specific reason was needed. In any case, I won't edit that article again for a week, to allow the consensus of the editors now looking at it to settle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sounds good, and blocking admin agrees - welcome back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Review of block. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

List of power stations in Greece

I have undone your move of List of power stations in Greece to List of renewable power stations in Greece. In your edit summary you stated there was "no mention of NON-renewable power stations" However, the section Other Thermal lists a large number of fossil fuel powered stations. These fuels, including oil, gas and coal are considered non-renewable, which contradicts your edit summary. Lmatt (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Please have a look at my comment at User talk:XLinkBot#Yet another false positive. I think an admin may need to stop the bot. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Shiftchanges comment

On the other hand, accusing someone of lying more than approaches a WP:NPA violation. :) The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he was lying; I said his post contained lies. I didn't mean to imply that they were his lies; I think he's just repeating them from inadequately edited Wikipedia pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian republic referendum, 1999

OK, so explain what do you mean. SO far your deletes make no sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 06:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You have primary sources supporting (some of) the facts in your added paragraph, but no sources about its potential significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The significance is logically implied. It is not necessary to have primary source to show something is significant or not: rule A7, it is sufficient to claim significance. Also, notability does not apply within article but only to the article as a whole. I have nonetheless accepted some of your comments and removed allegedly subjective content. The first sentence is supported by the evidence referenced in the second sentence ie: 11% yes vote is not a majority of population - obvious. Then the 11% is also questioned as overestimate due to plural voting - an accepted fact with primary source. I have removed the finer details of plural voting, as that can be looked up by following the reference. Citation 16 is from AUSTLII - the primary, most comprehensive source of all legal documents in Australia. The paper published in Adelaide Law Review by the foremost constitutional scholar proves that debate on the subject exists and defines its extent and significance. The author argues that the Constitution and the rule of law under it, despite its undemocratic origins, has been endorsed by the 'Tradition of Acceptance'. NO claim is made that the Constitution is not valid, only that a debate exists on the subject and the Preamble, had it been accepted, could have settled that point beyond dispute and make it law - common knowledge: s128 of the Constitution. I will insert citation to that effect. comment added by Monkyx (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

I have initiated talk on the subject on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Preamble, perhaps others can step up with more views on the subject... Monkyx (talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

You are misinterpreting so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I don't know where to begin.

{{db-a7}} only applies to articles, not to sections of articles.

Notability is not required within articles, but significance and relevance to the subject is.

You have not even suggested why it's significant or relevant to the referendum; it might be significant or relevant to an article on the Australian Constitution. Reference 16 does not support the referendum being relevant to the "legitimacy" of the constitution.

Please read the guideline on WP:SYNTHESIS. At best, many of the sentences in your paragraph are sourced to reliable sources, but the connection between the sentences is — I hesitate to say "nonsense", but it certainly requires sourcing. The connection of the paragraph to the referendum is solely in the unsourced last sentence.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"The connection of the paragraph to the referendum is solely in the unsourced last sentence" - actually it's in the first sentence now just for you, re 'significance', although any change to the Constitution (change only happens via referenda) is obviously significant, otherwise there would be no referendum. Any changes subject to s128 become a new supreme law, every word is interpreted and affects the court system, but that's common knowledge here. You inability to see the obvious connection between the demonstrably undemocratic origins (by today's criteria) of the constitution and the 1999 preamble proposal is inexplicable, or... you are just playing. BTW what is your interest in Australian constitutional law? You are taking a rather invasive approach to a distant subject. Anyway, review your tags after my changes and lets see what others have to contribute. This is not ought to be a two man competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 08:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My interest in Australian constitutional law relates to your disruption of Talk:Stanislaw Burzynski; your added paragraph in Australian republic referendum, 1999 is not much better in terms of violation of Wikipedia policies, although it doesn't appear to violate WP:BLP. And the connection of the (proposed) preamble to the "demonstrably" undemocratic origins has not been made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The connection to "demonstrably undemocratic" is in the vote numbers duly sourced. So your interest is not in the Constitutional Law but in being vexatious. Besides, I have made this comment over a year ago and nobody had issues with it except you and one more editor months ago. I thought my Burzynski comment was relevant, sorry you disagree but i guess there are limits to human consensus.

The connection to "demonstrably undemocratic" is pure WP:OR; I was going to say WP:SYNTHESIS, but there are too many unsourced steps. My interest here is in maintaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the meaning of which you seem to have no idea. If you are a new editor, your confusion is excusable. If you can provide a reliable source for the claim that the intent of the preamble was to justify the Constitution, then much of the paragraph could be recovered. As it stands, there's no "there" there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the "intent" of the preamble was to justify the Constitution. I claim it is a legal fact that subject to s128 of the Constitution the new preamble would become part of the supreme law and as such would quell any claims of invalidity arising from to low voter participation in the Federation referenda of 1900. It is self-evident that a statement "we commit to this constitution" being part of the supreme law is a legally binding pledge of all citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkyx (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "intent" is needed, or a single reliable source which states that the current Constitution is "demonstrably undemocratic" and that the preamble would justify the Constitution (more than a simple re-ratification without the preamble). So far, you do not have a source that the proposed preamble would "quell claims of invalidity" or justify the democratic principles of the Constitution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an opinion and as such, so what. I am not presenting intent or lack thereof but a legal fact. The constitution alreadfy has a preamble, it was there from beginning, your fundamental ignorance on the subject undermines your involvement in this discussion. Since law is the law it is absurd to ask for a proof that a law is valid, beyond already accepted compliance with the process for the law to be created, and that is confirmed (although superfluously since it is a common knowledge) by s128 of the constitution. If that is not sufficient for you, you better raise that with the High Court, as they do find s128 adequate. I have made one more rearrangement and rewording of the contribution and now its time for others to decide, not just you A. enough from me for one day. signing off.Monkyx (talk

I think I can knock this discussion on the head.
A Preamble is a part of the Constitution Act that gives an overall view of the intent of law regarding the Constitution. As such it is often used with the body of the Constituion to form legal opinions. The reason the new preable was proposed for the Australian Constitution is twofold. Contrary to popular belief, the Australian Constitution Act HAS NO PREAMBLE. What we call the preamble is actually the "preamble to the Act" and not part of the act itself. Therefore it has no legal standing. The new preamble was introduced by Howard (a staunch Monarchist) as a way to increase the No vote. The Republican movement was primarily minimalist, had opposed adding a preamble since 1991 and had specifically rejected a preamble at their convention in 1998 where it was actually noted that including a preamble would cause the referendum to fail. Wayne (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivia FYI. The preamble was written entirely by John Howard (proofread by Les Murray) in 1999 and not only completely ignored the recomendations of the 1998 Constitutional Convention but was based on symbols of liberal (as in Howards political party) ideology and included provisions that had no consensus. The wording was kept secret from the public, was presented to parliament two weeks before the referendum and was passed without amendments the next day. The inclusion of mention of God was another reason the preamble failed. A mention of God was not included in the 1900 preamble draft but was added after the government received a petition signed by 35,000 people to include it. The majority of discusions in the 10 years before the referendum rejected inclusion of God in any new preamble. Another problem is that Howards preamble did not include an enactment clause. An enactment clause was the only unanimous resolution passed by the Constitutional Convention. According to some academics the biggest flaw in the new preamble was the last line; The preamble to this Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution or the law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth. With no legal force what was the point? Wayne (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The National Law Journal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The National Law Journal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Slon02 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Slon02...firstly, this needed to be in its own section as it isn't related to the section above, so I've fixed this...secondly, why the heck are you templating an experienced editor? I still don't understand why some admins are so busy on their powertrips that they can't just "talk" to the experienced editors and find out why a situation is going on...geez.--MONGO 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, it's not the first time, but actually the THIRD time that this user has been warned for edit warring- just this month. A template gets the point across quite effectively- stop what you're doing, and this is why. It also happens to include a convenient link to my talk page in my signature, which means that if he wishes to discuss the situation, he has that option. What I see is an edit war over whether a name in an article should be redlinked or not- and nowhere was there any discussion of this except in edit summaries, not something that I'd call reaching across the aisle and trying to reach an agreement. I'd also like to point out that Arthur Rubin was not necessarily correct in his position in the edit war- while editors are encouraged to write an article before linking to it, they're not required to do so.--Slon02 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think one should consider that the IP Arthur has been dealing with has a history that Arthur may not have fully elaborated on...I haven't checked all that is going on, but I am sure Arthur could clarify this situation both on the article in question here and elsewhere...--MONGO 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Grumble. The anon just likes to link words, whether or not they violate WP:OVERLINK or WP:REDLINK. I'm keeping track of incarnations I notice, so that perhaps we can set a range-block (as agreed in ANI) without too much collateral damage. I recall there being consensus at ANI that if the anon could be blocked, then it should be. Let me check the links.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The last ANI discussion may have been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Michigan_troll(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic containment in post–World War II America

I've closed the AfD as keep; please go ahead and improve the article as you see fit. Deryck C. 13:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Female

Can you explain to me why it is correct to link the word sex to the Gender article (instead of linking it to the Sex article) in the opening sentence of the article for Female? Also, if you are right about it being correct, can you also link the word sex to the Gender article in the opening sentence of the article for Male? I'm not going to try editing the opening sentence of the Male article because I think a bold change like that from an anonymous user would be likely to be mistaken as vandalism. 174.1.105.28 (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Copperfield's flying

I disagree with your rollback at my edit. I didn't limited myself to removing stuff, but I also added a long section, and I think it was unfair to remove it that way. Also, you readded a dead link I removed, and you didn't read my message in the talk page, sinced you said "See talk page" --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I did read the talk page. Your arguments are not in keeping with policy; if you refuse to read the book, and are not trying to claim it's not reliable, then what is sourced to the book should remain. Some of the statements sourced to primary sources or interpretation of secondary sources should be removed, unless mentioned in a reliable source such as the book. Removing the dead link may be reasonable if (1) not to an off-net source and (2) not likely to reappear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the rules for references are different than those for "external links". References should not be removed from an article merely because the URL given is dead. --Srleffler (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed that about dead links; there's always a chance it's archived somewhere; however, if there's a dispute as to whether the source supports the statement, it may be different. It's difficult to {{verify source}} if you can't find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Kid

Hi Arthur! How's law school treating you? FYI, I just asked for a soft block against one of the Kid's IPs for persistent external link spamming. Details are on my talk page. BTW, what are you doing on wiki? Don't you have an exam tomorrow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 99.181.133.202 is online now and is likely the 'Kid again, despite the 30 day block. Please add that one to your list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a note saying editors are welcome to add to the list, including adding tags (specifically, the blocked tag). My desktop computer has died, which is the one I usually edit Wikipedia from, so I don't check as often. (All the law school stuff is on my laptop, but I may miss paying some bills, as the flashdrive backup also died.....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

I've done some rearranging of your article ("article about you"? I don't know what the preferred parlance is)... and I was hoping you'd take a look at it, and make sure there aren't any glaring inaccuracies. I know you can't edit it, but a brief skim couldn't hurt, I don't think. I modeled the format after sort of a blend of two other random mathematicians (haha), with the general format from the prior, and the formatting of the in-line "publications" section from the latter, which I think is something you'd mentioned earlier on. I considered adding a "See Also" for Putnam_Fellow#Putnam_Fellows but I don't know if it's standard to "see also" a sub-section... Anyway, thoughts appreciated... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)