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 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Commons File license

Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards.
SomeHuman 12:02, 19 September 2011‎ (UTC)

I will not make an edit war

Dear, Arthur, I see that you and I disagree as to the reliability of the book, Annals of the World. Where I use it as the foremost reference point for Biblical and Jewish history, you seem to deem it so wrong that any article that references it must be totally destroyed. Every time I try to defend its integrity, or at least the rational to leave the article standing, you flatly ignore me and simply direct me to Wikipedia policies that are non sequitur. So I'm going to take this from a different approach this in the nicest possible way. You tell me, out of your infinite wisdom, what exactly constitutes a reliable, verifiable source? (If the problem with Annals of the World is not because its not a reliable, verifiable source, then you have no right deleting it, as per WP:Accuracy). If for no other reason, I would just like to know what constitutes an accurate source, simply so that my work doesn't get deleted again.

By the way, I also don't understand, even if that one reference was totally unacceptable, how that justifies deleting the whole article. If you actually read my work, you would know I quoted many works outside of Ussher. What makes Ussher so evil, that any article he's mentioned in must be deleted, at the sacrifice of all the other reference? What exactly are you afraid of? But more important than this, I would just like you to give me a definition of a reliable source, please. LutherVinci (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your article "List of Canaanite rulers was a content fork from Canaan#List of Canaanite rulers as it was on the same subject but had different information, even if it were reliable. Some might say it was a POV fork. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice to use FORK instead of ACCURACY in your edit summery, or at least posted a better explanation on the discussions page. Interestingly, I would like to point out that though you deleted the content by he rational of FORK, your still used the word ACCURACY and made a comment on Ussher Chronology. It would be my suspicion, then, that you deleted the article because you don't like James Ussher, (as we've had conversations about him before) but trumps up the charge of FORK when you know that Ussher is actually a reliable source.

Yes, I believe your allegation that my article was a fork is unsubstantial. Expanding and organizing an existing page is not a fork, unless you can point me to a policy that says it is, otherwise your made that charge up. I did not change any of the information in it, as you claim, I instead added more information. Now, it is true that I did not transfer and expand all of the information in the existing article, but that is because I hadn't finished it (do you not notice the "Under construction" sign?).

Finally, "Some might say" is an unsubstantial allegation. The only force in the universe that has the right to prosecute me is not you, nor "some people", nor any administrator, but the law. And that law is Wikipedia's policy.

Now, with that in mind, you still haven't properly defined a reliable, verifiable source. Nor have you provided a policy that says I can't expand an article. I ask you - no, I beg you - for some reasonable explanation. LutherVinci (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reliable source. As has been pointed out when you made the chronology from Annals of the World the primary chronology in multiple articles including 24th century BC, it's not the generally accepted source. You should only add detailed chronologies where such generally accepted sources exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you return to the rational that my sources were unreliable. I suppose it is no longer a Fork in your mind. James Usshur is used as a reliable source here, here, and here, the latter making the quote, "...the commonly accepted Usshur chronology". Just because you, an individual person, has never heard of a 400-year old book, doesn't make it unreliable. And just because not all atheists believe the Bible, doesn't mean that the characters and chronologies provided by it are automatically fictional.

Even so, if Usshur wasn't the accepted chronology that it is, that doesn't by any means necessitate deleting the article. As it was under construction, I might have added more references and alternate chronologies, if you hadn't stepped in. Even without Usshur, there are more than plenty of archeology (and history, but you seem to be the kind to revert that) that can be molded together to form a list of kings that can at least be in chronological order. Would you delete all of that secular information, for the sake of one source?

I still fail to see how Ussher chronology qualifies as an unreliable source, as you continually fail to provide a proper definition thereof.

PS, I apologize for this interruption, as I see you are in the middle of an edit war. I guess I'm not the only victim of your POV. LutherVinci (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What is happening?

Hi Arthur, I notice this user and either he is stalking your edits or vice versa. Is this a known sock? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not known, specifically, but he's in one of the 99.* ranges in which 97.87.29.188 and some in the 141.* range. All the same person, although the 97 is the only one that seems stable for long periods of time. And, I suppose, I'm stalking him, in that, when I use Twinkle to revert his nonsense, it puts the article in my watch list, so I see it when he reinserts it. Search for "Michigan" in WP:ANI for more information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew when I saw this that this was sock/meatpuppetry. I was trying to find something in SPI...I will look through ANI on your suggestion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive689#User:99.56.123.165 using edit summaries for Spamming , but I thought there was one more recent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It is here in archive 723. I was just looking through some of their edits. I'm about to sign off for the evening but was trying to figure out an answer and Bushranger seems to suggest that rangeblocking would be out of order due to the number of affected IPs in that thread. Not sure how to help/handle this...you may want to post to ANI again. Maybe someone can assist...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you need to stop reverting the IP and get help. I almost blocked you for multiple EWs. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19

	National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library
	You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

Q

There is someone editing as an IP and hopping around lots of Ip addersses in Michigan. Do you have any idea who this could be? [1] [2] They seem to revert quite a few your edits, but that could be just because you are patrolling IP edits. I'm not sure what's up with the IP editor but I'm slowly looking into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

See #What is happening? above for partial history, and User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change for an earlier partial history. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ICD

Dear Arthur Rubin, You had removed a section on unfair Labour Practices in the article about The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy because it was unsourced and seemed irrelevant. It had, however, replaced an earlier section that was indeed sourced, and I believe it is highly relevant because the Institute is known for its large number of interns that spam and cold call universities all over the world. I have therefore reinserted the older passage (which was not written by myself!). I am happy to discuss this if you disagree. Best SkaraB 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Koch Industries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Koch

World Future Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Tony Colman

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oscar Ramiro

I have reinstated a modified background section that omits what you describe as "trivia" but retains items material to the biography. Do not continue to delete relevant, sourced information from the article. Please note that this person is definitely notable and will continue to have an entry here. I suggest you compare the entries for Sara Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme to see how this article will end up looking. I am going to keep working on the first paragraph of the Oscar article, because right now it is really terrible. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

timeline articles

Arthur, a link to the RfC would be necessary, and please remind me whether the RfC really did say that local consensus can override the community's consensus in this respect. Tony (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC (which you (or some Tony, anyway) drafted) did exempt timeline articles entirely; it didn't specifically mention "local consensus", so I've removed it from the rewrite. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember explicitly a conversation you had with Colonies Chris, in which you conceded that timeline articles were not included in any exemption. I'm reverting the change pending talk-page discussion. Tony (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember any such conversation. However, there are articles exempted, and it was not only the day-of-year and year/decade/century/millennium articles. Until you can provide a more specific list, the guideline needs to be modified to report that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Got a link to the RfC? Tony (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You said to Chris: "Ahem. Dates are not to be unlinked in articles about chronological periods, such as 2015. I'm not sure about November 2008 in sports. I believe the consensus was that those are also articles about dates, and hence the dates were not to be unlinked. I ask you to revert your date unlinking in those articles. (This is not the same as linking all the dates, which is what I would have to do to revert it if it's not fixed quickly.)".

Then you said, "Please disregard my comment about the sports timelines. There seems to be no project consensus." That is how the matter has been understood. Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If the guideline didn't apply to the sports articles, then they would be on their own. There's no evidence that they objected to the unlinking, even though it was still in violation of unlinking moratorium still in effect at that time. There was also no pattern, even within the article. In "2011 in the US", there was a pattern; dates were linked, until earlier this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

to say that i have been 3RR'ing when now you see the scope of this massive disaster here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davshul, disruptive editing) --- if only i had been listened to at the begining--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The only exceptions to 3RR are reverting vandalism and removing BLP and Copyright violations. Although I agree the edits you were reverting were disruptive, they were not vandalism; in fact, they appear correct if you don't read the full WP:LINKING guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

approximation appropriateness approach

[3] Better use talk, the in-line space appear too limited. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

This is a user who tried adding some wrong information into the Cardinality page Introduction 11/26/2011. Sorry I got that completely wrong. I was thinking that it might be really nice to have some reference to Cardinality of the Continuum in the Intro in really simple terms to give math newbs some idea of what they are getting themselves into by looking at Cardinality. I know it's included in the very next section after that (Comparing Sets) with links to look up natural numbers and real numbers if someone doesn't know what those are. And the amount of weight that someone that knows about set theory gives to its different parts(or how they think about it) is probably different than what someone else can appreciate. But it seems like cardinality being able to distinguish between different infinite sets is a pretty profound thought for someone not used to it, and that this would be good to introduce in the introduction to sort of soften the blow. So on behalf of the mathematically challenged I guess I'm asking you to consider fixing the section I tried adding and leaving it in. For people that already know about cardinality, they can just be mildly annoyed, but reassured in their memory I think. For people that don't know I think it really could help in their appreciation of what they've come upon.

Please delete after reading.

Thanks, J'odore (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this.

Plasma Arc Page - Planned Taiwan Facility

Hi Arthur - You recently reverted our posting on a planned Taiwan facility using Plasma to process Electrical Waste. Please can you advise what specific content you found to be advertising and we will amend accordingly. The facility is currently under intallation and people will be interested to know that it's in development. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.69.142 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Doc Burzynski

Hey Arthur, Good to see a fellow Techer fighting pseudoscience; especially good when we're talking about giving false hope to kids with cancer...

Sorry I'm late to the scene but I'll try to keep my eye on it from now on

Karthik Sarma (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Double signature?

Did you mean to sign my comment on User talk:Abootmoose? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was trying to sign both RfD notices. I can never remember which of the notices have headers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering if throwing your signature in there meant you were somehow trying to "me too" my comment or something. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor possibly using sock puppets

Today I discovered multiple edits done to the article Hierapolis which came from 2 different editors but the similarity in the edits makes me think that they were done by the same person. The edits were inappropriate or constituted vandalism so I removed all of them. I would like your opinion on this. The accounts are Maviyansima and Peterlewis. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To Dr. Morbius: You do not have to revert the edits individually. You could have undone them all in one edit since they formed a contiguous block. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I do that? Also, Peterlewis was not using a sock puppet he reverted to a previous edit that had vandalism without checking thereby making it look like he was putting the vandalism back in the article. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Use the radio buttons to look at the diff between just before the block of bad edits and the end of the block. Then click on the "undo" which appears at the upper right, e.g. in "Revision as of 04:11, 1 December 2011 (edit) (undo)". If some partial reversions appear within the block, you can go ahead anyway since by undoing the whole block you re-revert the things which you un-revert. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)