User talk:Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 2014 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I'm not spending as much time here as I would like, with taking care of my wife, 4 cats, a remodeling project, and looking for paying work. If I don't respond to a problem, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed it.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!



Bold numbers are prime ones!--Maher27777 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)--Maher27777 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
13 is right, 20 is wrong, and why is it interesting? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Richest 400 Americans[edit]

Thanks again for your recent comments on my talk page => User talk:Drbogdan#Richest 400 Americans - Your alternet source (note: title changed a bit - to clarify) - you mentioned, re the text/ref being considered, that the richest 400 => "have as much wealth as the lower 50%" - however, the primary source notes, instead, that the richest 400 => "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined" - this may (or may not) be equivalent of course - but quoting the primary source directly may seem preferred I would think - readers could then sort out, based on the cited reference(s), the better understanding for themselves - if interested, I should note that I've considered this earlier with User:LondonYoung => User talk:Drbogdan#Affluence in the United States article - in any regards - thank you *very much* for your efforts with all this - it's *greatly* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of a reference but not the supported text[edit]

Hi Arthur,

I don't understand your recent edits, which remove references to The Wikipedia Revolution but leave the text the refs were supporting in place (eg [1], [2], [3]). Surely if there's some problem I'm unaware of with this reference, the sensible solution would be to remove all text it was supporting, rather than leave unreferenced text? I feel like I'm missing something here, in which case a pointer to the pertinent discussion would be appreciated...

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear why the references are "improper"; is it because of circular referencing, claims not supported in the ref, or what? At any rate, somebody seems to be adding refs to the book somewhat at random, and removing text simply because a bad ref was added seems inadvisable. Arthur, could you explain what is happening, for the somewhat mystified among us? Reify-tech (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the references were added. At first, I thought the editor adding them was connected to the book. Now, I'm not so sure. Many of them were added in place, without there being any changes to the text. My feeling is that there is no evidence that both the book is intended to be non-fiction and the publisher edits it as non-fiction. If not fiction, perhaps it's an essay.
Actions: If possible the edits adding the source should just be reverted. (1) those without page numbers, especially when in the article more than once, should be replaced by {{cn}} if there are no other sources there. (2) those with page numbers, should either be tagged {{rs}} or replaced by {{cn}}. (3) If the references is kept, then url="" should be removed.
I apologize for not simply reverting all the edits adding the material, as I did at DMOZ. But, here, the editor may very well be acting in good faith, and it would have taken me longer to check each reference to see whether it was arbitrarily added, or some text was added for it to support, than seems reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Universal quantification[edit]

Hi! I'm not a category theorist, but in Universal quantification#As adjoint, the version of Logoprofeta appears to me more plausible than the one restored by your undo: In the latter, S doesn't occur anywhere on the right hand side, so e.g. ∃fS wouldn't depend on S, which seems strange to me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: Neither version for the universal quantifier seems plausible, but you're correct as to the existential quantifier. I've reverted myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't understand the section, but just noticed the non-occurrence of S. Maybe it should be said which category is talked about. I achieved at least to simplify ∃fS to f[S], i.e. the image of S under f, while ∀fS is empty except for f constant on S in which case it just contains f 's unique value. Maybe this amounts to ordinary universal quantification if f is a formula in one free variable; then {} and {true} would be the possible quantification outcomes. The section's final 2 sentences sound somewhat similar, but I didn't really understand them either. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1701 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reversal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sept 11 talk page[edit]

Hi Arthur, thanks so much for giving your input on the RfC. I hope it is acceptable for me to contact you here about it? I'm still so new to this whole process. I'd just like to point out my sources for the "public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials" line. One source is very new so many editors might not be aware of its contents (it came out just this month), and I think it really does establish the sentence and the notability of the whole section clearly. Namely, C-SPAN gave a prominent adherent an entire 45 minute segment of Washington Journal to present his theories. He purportedly speaks for thousands of professionals (including, according to him, a dozen high-rise architects and 70-80 structural engineers), and it was a very public objection without being minimized by the mainstream reliable source which publicized it. The second source is also relatively obscure, but is a peer-reviewed paper (Manwell pg. 857 PDF) which inspired the sentence because it states "In response to the U.S. government’s official account of the attacks of September 11, 2001, hundreds of officials, academics, and professionals have publicly expressed their objections." The Manwell source was questioned by editors, so I found the C-SPAN source to support it, which I believe it does very well. I do not state, and it is not implied, that the objections have factual basis - however I do feel like the existence of the objections has been established, and I would appreciate it if criticisms would address the two sources specifically. An alternative wording for the phrase was suggested during conversation, but no one supported it besides myself and the editor who proposed it suggested I go back to the original language.

Also, more of a general process question: is it too late to refine the language in response to editor feedback? How do I handle this? For example, one editor had a problem with the "prevailing theory" line, and I tried to reach a solution with them in discussion... but unfortunately other things happened and it turned into an RfC before any editors had time to respond to my suggestion. Also, it sounds like you might have some suggestions as well... not sure how to handle all this... do I leave it alone and let the chips fall as they may, or do I revise to accommodate feedback? Smitty121981 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smitty121981: As to the specific sources; I would have to watch the C-SPAN report to determine whether they take it seriously or whether it's "look at this kook". (I wouldn't spend 45 minutes on "look at this kook", but the History Channel has had two-hour specials with no accurate points, and 60 minutes has had 15-minute segments on "look at this kook".) As far as I know no person verified to have relevant credentials is on the 911A&E list, even disregarding the people who intentionally signed up with phony credentials so as to discredit the assertion that "members" had relevant credentials. It also doesn't support Manwell's statement per se; it would only support "professionals", if it were credible.
Manwell has a plausible point at p.859; the government used 9/11 to manipulate public opinion. However, his use of Griffin 2004 suggests a certain lack of editorial review. It not being a significant point of the paper, I wouldn't consider it necessarily to have been reviewed, and I would lean against using it on Wikipedia for that statement. (In other words, Manwell appears to be quoting Griffin, and Griffin is not a reliable source for much of anything.) And as a whole has no credibility whatsoever; I question whether it has sufficient indicia of authenticity to be used even for a courtesy copy, but I admit the possibility that it is stored correctly.
The existence of the objections has been established, but not whether any of the objectors have relevant credentials. Gage, for example, is apparently not a structural engineer.
You can discuss variations of the text, but I don't think you will find support for other than the fact that there are conspiracy theories and that they are popular. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Please do watch the clip, contrary to expectations there is no "kooky" language at all. Indeed, Gage is sitting in the same seat (metaphorically) as the prominent senators who often appear on the show. C-SPAN describes the show as "The Washington Journal daily live program provides a forum for leading journalists and public policy makers to discuss key events and legislation."
  • The source of the information is not the hosting site where Google Scholar found a pdf, but is the journal American Behavioral Scientist - do you have a specific problem with this peer-reviewed journal? "For over 50 years, American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences."[4] Also as I pointed out to another editor who criticized the sources Manwell uses, the interpretation of those sources passed peer-review and we as editors cannot take it upon ourselves to re-interpret it (or to decide it wasn't reviewed without any evidence of this). Finally, you did make a good point about the C-SPAN coverage only supporting the "professionals" part and not the "officials". Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have now included a third source for the statement as support. History professor Robert A Goldberg gave a presentation published by Florida Atlantic University Press titled "Enemies Within: The Conspiracy Culture of Modern America" (2010). In addition to Richard Falk, Sibel Edmonds, Raymond McGovern, Andreas von Bulow, Michael Meacher, and Peter Dale Scott which Manwell listed specifically in her paper, Goldberg added Jesse Verntura, Cynthia Mckinney, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, leaders of the John Birch Society, and religious leaders like Texe Marrs and VS Harrel to the list of officials. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon on September 6[edit]

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm
Armory Center for the Arts.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are invited to meet up with online magazine East of Borneo for an edit-a-thon to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next event in their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, September 6, 2014 from 11am - 4pm at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

(Alleged) incorrect edit comment[edit]

I found what I thought was an incorrect edit comment -- and, maybe I should have alerted you about it ["here"], instead of posting about it in this new section of a certain AWB robot "Bugs" page. (Sorry -- ['if' applicable]).

Please [feel free to] do whatever is appropriate, including perhaps [a] removing the above "section" from that Bugs page (with or without moving it to this "Talk:" page), OR [b] adding a comment to that "section", explaining what happened (/slash "how", /slash "why"...); and/or perhaps including [c] diagnosing / "finding a solution for", some bug in the AWB robot [code] ...or whatever.

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that this has been
Resolved: with no code changes needed, to the AWB robot [code]
now -- and archived. Good!
Just for the record, the above-mentioned "new section" (see the link above labeled "this", right before where it says "new section", above), has apparently been moved (from the old location, which [a] can be found above, if you look at the wikitext, or if you look at the "destination" URL of the hyperlink; and [b] did not contain the substring "Archive_26", or even "Archive"; and [c] was: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Incorrect_edit_comment.2C_.28which_mentions_AWB.29) to its new hotel (or, should I say, to its "final resting place"?) whose (new) location is [more like] Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_26#Incorrect_edit_comment.2C_.28which_mentions_AWB.29. Just "FYI". --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am[edit]

I need to know more of my lineage, prescott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ (talkcontribs) 08:19, August 24, 2014

Arbitration amendment request(Tea Party movement)[edit]

An arbitration amendment request(Tea Party movement), to which you contributed, resulted in a motion. The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, Arthur. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup on September 21[edit]

The 20th Los Angeles meetup: Sunday, September 21 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Join us on Sunday, September 21, from 11am to 4pm at Kramer Studio in Mid-City (map) for a meetup and edit-a-thon! Get to know the Los Angeles Wikipedia community and do some editing (or learn to edit!) in a collaborative environment. Please RSVP and consider becoming a member of the SoCal task force to help us improve articles about everything in the region.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Sept 11 attacks RfC[edit]

Hi Arthur, thanks again for your feedback on the RfC. I wanted to let you know that I completely revised the second sentence in the proposal, including removing the "hundreds of professionals and officials" line that you objected to. Also, I have completely reworked the sources. Manwell is gone (along with many others), and I think I am using the C-SPAN clip in a much more neutral way now. If you don't mind, do you think you could come by and take another look at it? link to RfC Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

cyber infobox templates[edit]

Hi Arthur, my group is interested in creating a set of infobox templates for Category:Cyberattacks and similar pages. There is an existing/evolving ontology for this field in STIX. We are looking for an experienced Wikipedian to help guide us in creating such infobox templates. Would you be interested, or can you recommend someone who might be interested in collaborating?

Regards jrf (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

reverting the deletion of Wage theft from Income inequality in the United States[edit]

You deleted Wage theft from "See also" in Income inequality in the United States, claiming (if I understand correctly) that it was not relevant. I added words explaining the relevance that I see. I hope this is acceptable. Best Wishes, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My reversion of your deletion was itself reverted, asking me to move the discussion to Talk:Income inequality in the United States, which I'm doing. Did you look at the article on Wage theft? When I looked at it, the relationship between wage theft and income inequality seemed obvious, namely that wage theft was one mechanism by which income inequality is increased.  ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)