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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

lgm?

I think you mistook Little green rosetta [1] for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Choice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice talk page

Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was saying that the edit was typical of X, and I expected better from Hugo. However, I guess I need to clarify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxable income

Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it....

Tax = (tax on taxable income) less tax credits

Taxable income = gross income less deductions.

Perhaps the sentences needed to be reordered, but they both needed to be there. The anon deleted the tax credits sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You will laugh

[2]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It isn't.

Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I confused you with Xerographica. It's still the case that there is no reason to include the McAlister section, and it violates Wikipedia polices, but I'll have to consider whether your other edits are an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now restored your revert except for the excessive inclusion of McAllister's opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the dummy-edit clarification. As for the "McAllister section", it's still there, you merely removed a clarifying single sentence from it. Your edit summary suggests that a "good argument" for removing that specific McAllister content exists, but I haven't seen it. Could you direct me to it? I also certainly haven't seen an indication that policy (or policies) have been violated; which policy? My intent is to revert the bold removal of that long-standing content pending an actual argument for removal being presented, and an actual policy violation being specified (unless I missed an already existing discussion somewhere). I see that you refer to the content as "excessive", am I to understand it's a length issue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The McAllister paragraph is much too long, as it is, and McAllister's opinions on desired future actions, as opposed to opinions about what actually happens or happened, is much less relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!

- MrX 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing at Koch Industries

I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you mixed up with another user, I also updated the Talk page. Cowicide (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning (warning now stricken)

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning. 1. EW has not occurred. 2. WP:DTTR. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this warning was meant for another user, please ignore.Cowicide (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, please strikeout the template message. It will help. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, did I strike out the template tag correctly or should I do more? Cowicide (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Assuming your permission, I will do the whole thing and modify the section heading. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:KochPAC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For explaining the Idaho referendum process in terms of the California election law, which is familiar to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"dead. like always"

Where is that quote from? It's niggling at the back of my mind, and google is no help. siafu (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered in E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose all of the "proposed topic bans" and consider this is a case of running amok. I did use one (three letter word) in my response to the proposal to ban you from all US political articles which I hereby grant you permission to alter if it offends your sensibilities at this season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

abt that insertion idea

the construction of the solution tries to use insertion , there is also a data prescan but algo is not debugged n its work awfully if it is corrected/debugged , only O(n^1,9)... i think it could do better... 93.118.212.93 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

You have said several times that you think I misunderstand policy. Perhaps you missed where I asked you to clarify which policy you think I misunderstand, and why you think I do? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you are making corrections, could you please remove the following sentence from the ANI subpage:

• You restored it, and the material you restored is clearly not in the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you had me confused with Zenographica again, or someone else. I didn't make that restoration. Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do. I still think you were edit-warring about McAllister, but that's a minor point, and North8000 didn't bring it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

List of important publications in anthropology

Hi Arthur Rubin, it has been a while since we last made contact. Perhaps you remember that I accused you of vandalism and vice versa and we were at the brink of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering. My apologies for the disputes back then. I believe we are contributing to Wikipedia with the best of our intentions. I am back on Wikipedia, and I hope that I have learnt more about how this community works. As you seemed to be very knowledgable concerning Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, I'd like to ask you when it is appropriate to send an article through WP:AfD. Do you see yourself rather as a 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' wikipedian? My previous List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature was surely a candidate for WP:AfD. Now, it has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

KillerChihuahua is a she. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

Sorry about that. I got an E-mail mentioning her wife, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. From a somewhat confused person, I guess. Might they have been referring to her wife Mr Chihuahua?[3] :-) But don't worry, I think Puppy's username deceives even more people into assuming she's a he than my own does. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

"For the female of the species is more deadly than the male." Kipling, The Female of the Species, Stanza 1 (1911).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pfaffian

Put in your formula the Pauli matrix σ², and you will get 1 = - 1. This means that your formula is incorrect. Trompedo (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added more detail, as it doesn't obviously follow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

column/article

Hi Arthur, I don't know if you saw my comment on the TPM talk page but the Al Hunt Letter from Washington is considered a column and is actually published by the International Herald Tribune. I emailed the managing editor of the NYTs. I also looked into Teaparty.org and couldn't find any notability for them, unlike Tea Party Patriots, etc. That edit relies solely on a primary source anyway. I'd like to edit both things at the same time. One, correct Al Hunt's bit by adding in column and IHT. And delete teaparty.org and put in Tea Party Patriots agenda/mission which is supported by RS. Are these edits that can be done at the same time or would that be two edits that might be considered reverts? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you do them at the same time, it would only be one revert for the purpose of 3RR, and (their being in the same section) probably only one revert for 1RR, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edit being in the same section is what has me unsure. Here is the language on the warning on the talk page:

"No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large." It's the "same content." Now,I interpret that to mean, you revert "Joe was born in Kansas," and you keep doing it, that's the same content. But what if it's in the same section? I just don't want an admin to say changing two different things in the same section that makes it the "same content." Malke 2010 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there is different content, so they should be treated independently; but the fact that some editors are reordering the "mission statements" confuses the issue. The simplest way to think of it is, as far as you are concerned, the entire paragraph is now a single piece of "content", for 1RR.

At least, if you do it as a single edit.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Also, when I was trying to run down Al Hunt at the New York Times, I came across a sort of NYTs reference library and this is how they characterize the tea party [4]. Since this is not opinion but the result of reporting and fact-checking, and arguably by some of the best people who know how, might this be a better choice rather than the Al Hunt bit? Especially since Al Hunt's piece doesn't really back up the things he's saying. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be "background", which is not as good as an actual article, but it's better than Al Hunt's piece. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the same, that it was "background," but at least it's been vetted and beats 'opinion.' Okay, I'll go with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

question

Arthur, I wrote an article for Jenny Beth Martin but when I tried to move it to the project space I got a message that an article for her had already been deleted. I reviewed the link and it seems it was deleted for copyright vio concerns among other issues. I left a note on the admin's page. My question is, it is a big deal to get this unraveled, or is it something the admin who deleted it can fix? I think she's notable and should have an article. I have RS, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If the page was at Jenny Beth Martin, what was deleted was a redirect to Tea Party Patriots. The deletion reason at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Jenny Beth Martin was "better a redlink than a misleading redirect", with a possible {{db-author}}, as the editor who created the redirect agreed with the deletion. I don't see any reason for you to be unable to create the article, or to there being any objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:KochPAC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I should've read your message a little more thoroughly before calling a talkback, but I think we're pretty much on the same page.   — C M B J   02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I am not suprised or so upset with the result as I am with the manner in which it was done. You are involved, so I am not asking you do anything, just whether something should be done. He seems to be doing this quite often, and has had other concerns. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a model for complaining about a pattern of non-admin closures. For complaining about an individual closure, WP:DRV is appropriate. I've seen complaints rejected at ANI, leaving only (among venues that I can think of) RFC/U. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Binders full of women consensus reversion

While I respect your decision to edit the result, could you please edit the Talk page and the 2nd AFD nomination page to match? I would do so myself, but I am not in a mood to have the discussion I was having with the complainer turn into what could be considered an edit war. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this just needs to go to DRV. I see the consensus of policy-based arguments as merge or delete. For what it's worth, I made the decision before I was contacted by the complaintant above. I don't expect the redirect to stick, because it appears that enough editors are motivated to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that any anti-Romney meme will get an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fictional futures

I understand you value these sections but most of them are not cited material. I felt no obligation to necessarily transfer them to a new page because they are not verified and cited. If these fictional mentions had been cited, I would have been compelled to preserve the material and move it to a new article. --☥NEO (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)'

With that said, I think we can all agree that uncited material can be removed without question. --☥NEO (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, not entirely. Although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if the setting is sourced in our article on the subject, it should be adequate, just as citations are not required in 2013 for (alleged, in some cases) factual events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring zero divisors and unity to the first line of integral domain. When adapting the previous editor's changes, I unwittingly transported the zero-divisor bit down with a block, and then deleted it because I thought it was in the first line. What you added in is exactly what I think should be there. Rschwieb (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

KC

FYI, KC is a "she".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been told that (above). <redacted> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Np, just reading the circus now.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to make some comment related to the common epithet for a female dog, but decided to redact it. Perhaps it will make it easier to remember her gender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)