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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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 15:19, 29 January 2013

Re: "Anti-immigration"

Arthur, I respectfully request that you change your "vote" in the survey. After reading your remarks, I think perhaps I didn't make my proposal clear. Per WP:WEIGHT, "TPm is anti-immigration" is a minority opinion. Putting it in the "agenda" section at the start of the article, particularly when using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact, gives it far too much weight. This pretends that it's the majority opinion.

In the course of the discussion, I've been proposing that it should be mentioned nearer the end of the article, in the section discussing allegations of racism. I would also carefully attribute this claim to the handful of persons who are making it, such as Matt Barreto, rather than using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact. I think this is also consistent with what you're saying, although from your "vote" you seem to want to keep it right where it was in the "agenda" section, stating it as a fact. If you agree that it should be moved farther down in the article, under the conditions I've described, please change your vote to Oppose, indicating that you oppose use of the term "anti-immigration" in the "agenda" section. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

...and if you'd like to contribute to the development of WP:CONSENSUS, you should also supply clear reasoning for your position, as well as proper substantiation. Otherwise, it's just another word in bold print equating to "me too", and doesn't serve any purpose. That's why many of us presently in the discussion don't even bother with inserting a meaningless "support" or "oppose" word in a list; it's the reasoned discussion and addressing of concerns that determines consensus. Which brings me to a point of contention: P&W, could you explain to everyone what you base your assertion that "TPm is anti-immigration is a minority opinion" on? Did you read that in reliable sources somewhere? Did you just make it up? Did you mean it's an opinion that only "minorities" hold? Did you base it on doing Google searches on words or phrases, then compare numeric counts? It would be great to know what prompts you to make such a statement, as it seems to be the foundation of many of your arguments. If you have an answer, could you post it on the article Talk page, for all to see? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• However, certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote, so I have to rewrite it to something they might not be able to misconstrue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that comment of yours. Would you mind pointing out that unacceptable behavior? I'd like to look into it and see if I can convince them to knock it off. We don't need another ArbCom mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Arthur. I have just edited a comment of yours to remove a personal attack. You accused me of TE behavior and "intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments" without clearly showing where. I've examined the whole page, twice, and see nothing close to what you have described. I'll assume it was another mistake. You can, of course, revert my edit if you feel it is necessary, and I'll pursue the matter in a more formal venue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious to all that Malke (1) originally had a "thinko" where she wrote "anti-immigration" and meant anti-illegal-immigration, someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter), and you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change and (2) It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration", and feels the latter is misleading (although only P&W thinks that it means "racist" and a WP:BLP violation). You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading. If you were to recognize that it can be misleading, we could have a reasonable discussion as to whether it is misleading; but you do not do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, Xenophrenic's talk page behavior needs to be brought up on the ArbCom talk page. Newyorkbrad said if we had other workshop type comments to post them on the talk page. The redaction/reverting of editors' comments, the never ending tendentious arguments, and the incivility needs to be addressed. I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been able to find (although, I admit, I hadn't looked that hard, also being involved in searching for employment) evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked that hard either. But I will say the vigor he currently displays in pursuing his quest for anti-immigration/nativism, and the incivility, all apparently without regard to consequences, needs to be addressed. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think North mentioned TE. Maybe he knows where examples might be found. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, under the circumstances, if you think action is appropriate regarding the conduct of a particular editor, may I suggest the motions process? An arbitrator may propose a motion for an immediate vote by all arbitrators, "if the case is straightforward enough." Present your evidence to SilkTork, since he has taken an interest in the case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

X is not named as a party in the RfAr, and fairness would suggest that if he were added there at this late date, he should be able to submit evidence before sanctions are imposed. Of course, if the RfAr results in conditions applicable to all editors, those conditions would, of course, apply to X. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I see several problems with what you have stated above. I'll be frank and simply tell you straight away that I don't believe for a moment that you are simply mistaken or misunderstanding at this point. You have exhausted what little remaining good faith I maintained in you, and now I'm fairly certain that you are willfully misrepresenting the situation, and intentionally distorting the truth. Others may not readily see it, so I'll provide the following clarifications:

• It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration"...

That would be a reasonable assumption under any other circumstance than this one. Had you been following the beginning of that discussion, however, you would have noticed that Malke had asked, "Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the 'tea party.'" That's right, Arthur, while everyone else on the page was debating whether or not the TP movement was anti-immigration, Malke was arguing that the TP movement wasn't anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Surely Malke must have "had a thinko" (new term for me, forgive me if I'm not using it right) and really meant to say "anti-immigration", right? No. She was demanding that I source the fact that TPers protest against illegal immigration. Even Arzel expressed confusion over Malke's stance, until I assured him she really did ask me for sources showing protests against "illegal" immigration. Arzel's response. Even North8000 was confused over Malke's use of the "anti-illegal-immigration" phrase, saying, "The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration...". I set him straight, saying, "No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here." Malke confirmed that she was indeed intentionally talking about illegal immigration, not anti-immigration, saying, "I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources." So Arthur, when everyone was arguing over the "anti-immigration" phrase, Malke was arguing over "anti-ILLEGAL-immigration", and insisting that I provide better sources to prove that TPers protested, marched and rallied against it. It was confusing to me, and to Arzel, and to North8000 that she was arguing over one term rather than the other, but I learned not to question her. When she later in that same discussion thread said "anti-immigration" when she really meant "anti-illegal-immigration", you claim it should have been "obvious to anyone reading" what she meant? Oh, hell no -- don't even try to pull that, Arthur. Apparently Malke talks about what she talks about, and assuming it's "obvious to all" when she makes a mistatement, well, nothing could be further from the truth.

• someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter)

No, Arthur. No one reverted her correction. I've checked every singe edit, twice. That's more bullshit, and I'm fairly certain you knew it was bullshit when you spouted it. I find that's pretty much true of most of the comments you make that are not accompanied by diffs. But your plan worked, Malke took your bait and chimed in with "I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too." Well done.

• you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change

More bullshit. Have you even looked at the exchange? Oh wait ... that's right, you've been too busy to bother to look at that upon which you comment. I knew Malke had simply made a mistake, or a "thinko" as you say, and I even stated so: "You've mixed the terms up again." But she denied getting the terms mixed up, saying, "No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration." And sure enough, there were her words: "anti-illegal-immigration" ... so I must have misread them the first time, I figured. But then I checked her edit. She had slipped in the word "illegal", without updating the time stamp, without noting that she had edited a comment to which I had already replied, and she denied she had made a mixup.

• You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading.

More bullshit. Since you don't have the time to actually read the discussions, and therefore have no real clue about my positions regarding anti-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration, allow me to quote from some of my own statements from the Talk page:

The difference? "legal immigration" is the process of becoming a legally recognized and lawfully recorded resident, whereas "anti-immigration" is opposition sentiment toward aspects of the movement of non-native people into a country. I have not referred to anti-immigration as being anti-legal-immigration; you are mistaken. I have noted, however, that opposition to legal immigration and opposition to illegal immigration are both under the umbrella of "anti-immigration". re: Britannica; of course it's not the only source. There are several more with it at the end of that sentence, and many more have been raised here on this Talk page during this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I know very well the difference between "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and your assertion to the contrary is designed to intentionally mislead. I have never said they are the same. As for the latter being "misleading", where have I commented on that at all? (oh yeah, you don't do diffs, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery.) You are the only person to assert that it is misleading. Anything is open for discussion, Arthur, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

• I hadn't been able to find ... evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now.

And yet you still are unable to provide diffs. That is very telling. You haven't indicated tendentious editing in your comment above. I pointed out that Malke had mixed up her terminology, and she publicly denied it, but knowing that she actually had, she corrected her mixup by editing an old comment without indicating her change. I civilly asked her to refrain from doing that, and cited the relevant policy. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's routine discourse between editors. I've expressed disagreement with certain opinions, and you misrepresent that as failing to "acknowledge" or "recognize" something -- again without evidence. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's you manufacturing baseless personal attacks upon an editor with whom you disagree, rather than discussing and working through your disagreements.

What does it say about you and your motivations when you have to actually "search" for evidence of tendentious editing, or ask other editors like North hoping that maybe they can provide you with something to manufacture a case against someone? Think about it. When KillerChihuahua fell ill and was hospitalized, I started compiling evidence for ArbCom in case she wasn't able to handle the matter, but fortunately she was back online very quickly. Yet, in that short time, I was able to compile 11.5 typed pages of diffs of egregeous behavior -- serious stuff warranting sanctions, not hand-wavey vague accusations that don't amount to much -- without even trying. I didn't have to struggle to find something, anything, to try to build a case ... it all jumped out at me, and I could barely type it up fast enough. There's a clue there. But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. It's why I don't rush to the boards when I see editors flagrantly breaking rules (like Arzel reverting the word "generally" out of the article twice [1][2] in 13 hours - a slam dunk block). Unfortunately, since I see you have left your unsubstantiated personal attack on the article Talk page, I'm forced to take this to an administrator's board. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You left a personal attack on the article Talk page, without substantiation. I've asked you to retract it. It's still there. I've expressed my concerns at ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you say you compiled 11.5 pages of diffs that show 'egregeous' behavior? Where is it? Why not post it on the ArbCom workshop talk page? Not all 11.5 pages, of course, just the really 'egregeous' stuff. And feel free to post egregious stuff, too, if you have it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Xen, one more thing. Your version of the exchange regarding anti-immigration/illegal immigration. That doesn't really match up with the comments you made afterwards. Arthur is correct. Your new version is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Arthur's assessment is incorrect. I note that you, like Arthur, do not accompany your faulty assertions with diffs. Is there a reason for that, outside of the obvious one? Arthur calls the phrase "anti-immigration" misleading. P&W and North call it "deceptive". You haven't used either of those terms, but I assume you feel likewise. Arthur's assertion that I am "refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration"" is opposite from the truth. Arthur's assertion that we can't discuss if "anti-immigration" is a misleading term because I am "refusing to acknowledge" that "it can be misleading" is false. I've already discussed that it may be "less specific", and I've provided links to sources discussing that very terminology. Will you be providing the substantiation that Arthur Rubin cannot? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, redact your own comments to match mine. Do not redact/move my comments again. I meant for my comments to be in the order I wrote them. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I never changed the order of your comments, Malke. I responded to each of your comments per normal Talk page editing convention. Please see: WP:Indentation and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Perhaps you misread? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(Copying comments and responses from above for readability. --Xenophrenic)

Xenophrenic,you say you compiled 11.5 pages of diffs that show 'egregeous' behavior? Where is it? Why not post it on the ArbCom workshop talk page? Not all 11.5 pages, of course, just the really 'egregeous' stuff. And feel free to post egregious stuff, too, if you have it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for the 11.5 pages of 'egregeous' stuff to get posted at ArbCom. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't comment at ArbCom because you don't want to be included in sanctions. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Xen, one more thing. Your version of the exchange regarding anti-immigration/illegal immigration. That doesn't really match up with the comments you made afterwards. Arthur is correct. Your new version is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Arthur's assessment is incorrect. I note that you, like Arthur, do not accompany your faulty assertions with diffs. Is there a reason for that, outside of the obvious one? Arthur calls the phrase "anti-immigration" misleading. P&W and North call it "deceptive". You haven't used either of those terms, but I assume you feel likewise. Arthur's assertion that I am "refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration"" is opposite from the truth. Arthur's assertion that we can't discuss if "anti-immigration" is a misleading term because I am "refusing to acknowledge" that "it can be misleading" is false. I've already discussed that it may be "less specific", and I've provided links to sources discussing that very terminology. Will you be providing the substantiation that Arthur Rubin cannot? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur's assessment is dead on. Diffs can be found at ArbCom workshop under "Xenophrenic." You've taken these 'issues' to the article talk page where you edit warred. You've been here where you've edit warred. You then went to ANI, and now you've edit warred on your own talk page, where this discussion really belongs. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

hi, Mr. Rubin

i think ull have to forgive my slang: bcz in my country there some policy abt the teachs that the English is mostly for the VIPs (at least it was in the 80s when i was i highschool, im not such good plain english speaker... ok u help me with some compression data formula. please consider the followings here

we got a bin string: first well make it base three string , it will have abt 3/5*N , n number of bits of given bin string digits... in tipical worst case we got equal probabilities 4 each digit: we mark aiding 3/5 bits one (the most frequent ) digit... the rest of the string which is more like a 2/5 bits binary string will convert it again to base 3 n repeat the rutine untill we'll get a totally lenght of N bits but with the mention that probability of "1" binary digit is 2/3 (or 1/3) making possible, aiding ur formula, a 92% data compression.... Respect, Florin , Romania 93.118.212.93 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer you write in your native language, and paste a Google translate string. However, repeated "compression" never works because the first compression should produce close to a random string. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

thank You 4 answering to me, Sir, what i meant is some repeated routine (on practically different datas) and only one compression of all 1:2 probability of digits resulted string to b compressed. im not sure its working, anyway :) 93.118.212.93 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Do you really advocate exclusion of the Boston marathon bombings from the 2013 timeline? Bearian (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at the present time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I closed the ANI thread

I closed the ANI thread I opened about Alan but I would like to thank you for that great idea. Did you want to inquire more about that or would you like me too? It would probably be better and stand a chance of success coming from you. No one really cares what I have to say. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to ask. "We" (Wikipedia) would have to both devise the filter, and agree to put it in place. I'd support agreeing to put it in place if it were properly devised, but I don't know if it can be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I could write it but I would need to look at a couple to get the coding right and I don't have access to see them so you should probably just ask at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter and see what they say. It shouldn't be hard to say editor = Alan liefting and namespace equals non mainspace and is category related. Its probably not possible to make it 100% and might even catch some false positives but at least he'll be allowed to edit. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I endorse what Kumioko said (except for your sentence about no one caring about what you have to say Kumioko – it's the rule-based editors and power-trippers who don't care for what you have to say – and if they agreed with you, how would you feel then?) It would be worthwhile, even if it took some time, to develop a generic system for targeting defined edit spaces. Then it could be used for topic bans and all sorts of other restrictions, and hugely reduce unnecessary dramah.--Epipelagic (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree but then ANI would be a lonely place! Where would all the trolls go? :-) Just kidding, no need to beat me. Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Topic bans are tricky; they not only ban edits of articles on the topic (doable with a filter), but of discussion of the topic on articles which shouldn't be in the topic; and the list of blocked words should be restricted-access, per WP:BEANS. A filter should also probably be reserved for editors who wouldn't try to get around the restriction. I'll support a filter for Alan, but necessarily a general solution.

We don't allow filters to block the editor, which would probably be necessary to even reduce the WP:BOOMERANG drama on ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression some admins favour ill defined restrictions, since Sandstein and others block editors on the grounds that "broadly construed" they transgressed against the restriction. That's a cruel position to place editors in, knowing that inevitably, somewhere, they must stumble up against the vague "broadly construed" problem. A powerful filtering system that has the flexibility, but of course requires admins to specify precisely what is to be restricted, would put an end to that unhealthy nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger Pope & Partners

HM The Queen wearing specs from Roger Pope & Partners.

Hi,

Can you please undelete this. Clearly not in a million years a speedy delete. It is a high class London opticians, opticians to HM The Queen and has a Royal Warrant. I suspect that the nomination was made in bad faith as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no claim of notability in the article. If you want to create an article which has such a claim, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is also conspicuously absent from List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family, so I would like to see a source for the claim of a Royal Warrant. That is not required to protect it from a further CSD, but it would be grounds for deletion if no source is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then the other article is incomplete... For sources see [3] and [4] [5] [6]. Some of the sources are from the company themselves, however they are not inconsistent with the other sources, and it's not the sort of thing one would get away with lying about; I think Trading Standards would look very dimly on claiming a Royal Warrant when one didn't have one, and it's against the law to do so (Merchandise Marks Act 1887). I'm pretty sure the original article, which I did not write, did contain this claim, btw, so please undelete it on behalf of whoever did. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I missed the Royal Warrant when I deleted it. Restored now. You should note that the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 doesn't apply to Wikipedia, but I'm sure a published statement by the Queen would be sufficient grounds for removal of an incorrect claim of a Warrant, even if a reliable source reported it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you undelete the talk page as well? I understand that the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 only applies to a British company claiming to have a Royal Warrant, and Wikipedia is neither British nor does it claim to have a Royal Warrant. However, it does apply to Roger Pope & Partners who have made such a claim on their website, and in light of that, the information does seem to be reliable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Created a new section as suggested

Hi,

I created a new section at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter about my questions, as per your suggessions, since mine was more of general discussion.

Other than very few articles and some technical querries,usually I do not participate in english wikipedia discussions.So I had no clue about discussion about restrictions on user Alan.

By the way,(I know we can not engineer every aspect of human life) , but still,if you keep problem of technical feasibility aside for a while and think, about "technological solution for sociological issue" , are you sure,criticizing technological solutions altogether, is not a logical fallacy and self contradictory; Whether blocking a user is not "technological solution for sociological issue" ? Is not maximum portion in concept and usage of abuse filter/edit filter in itself a "technological solution for sociological issue" ?

I am interested in discussing with you,and have your openion on some technical solutions and enhancement bugs ,if you do not mind .

Mean while any support in upgrading the article Legal awareness is also welcome.

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

MC pictures revert

ok lets say i accept this (thou i do not since all the editors were just fine till MC made this sudden change) then MC should pull one name at a time backwards (not wholesale changes deemed only by him) so we other editors can vote on each incremental removal - to remove 6 names or even 2 at a time is capricious and adds the complexity of a network solution set needing to be arrived at which is not likely to make any editor happy--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

in mathametics the axiom is "all things being equal" meaning to arrive at a solution set you hold one variable changable at each step - no mathematician would change 6 variables at one time and expect to ever arrive at the solution set - namely pull a name and see how each loss is met by all the editors after a couple of days - not pull a whole bunch arbitrarily chosen by one "Superman" editor--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

74.50.143.10 vandal

74.50.143.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) i have noticed that this editor is a vandal--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Venn diagrams

What other logical relations?

These don't apply to a declaration of "all logical relationships", when talking about Venn Diagrams.

http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALogicalRelation.htm

"A logical relation is an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to another, in reasoning, as

   a premise to a conclusion, or
   an antecedent to a consequent."

There are very many different types of logical relationships, and an unqualified "all" is incorrect. That's why I specified set membership,as that is the only logical relationship that is displayed by a Venn diagram

Thank you. Madsci_guy Madsci guy (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is even less coherent than your previous comment, even though quoting a "glossary". And I ask you to name a "logical relation" which is not related to what you call "set membership", we'll see modifications need to be made in the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

B. L. S. Prakasa Rao‎

Please take a look on the new article I created. He was supervised by your father. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Brickstarter

Hey, I don't feel super strongly about which stub tag we use for that article, but I think it's always better to pick one and not clutter a tiny stub. Thoughts? Steven Walling • talk 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It looked to me as if you removed all the stub tags. It seems I was mistaken. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Have a nice day, Steven Walling • talk 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Re: Zeitgeist: The Movie Thank you for pointing out lead sentences should reflect the content of the article. It makes sense. Nevertheless, I am removing "conspiracy-theory based ideas" from the lead sentence because it's a buzzword with negative connotations, and although some of the article content relies on the spurious opinions of the peanut gallery (whom are apt indeed to slam alternative perspectives as "conspiracy theories"), I am wont to provide an introduction that doesn't reflect those opinions.

So, I hope your reasoning is a little bit stronger than it appears at its face: it is true, introductions should reflect the article's content, but Wikipedia articles are not exercises in academic writing. I am willing to go out on a limb and purport most visitors (taking neither you nor I as representative) read only the introduction. In psychology, we know that readers are influenced by what they read first and last (primacy and recency, or something to that effect). Extending this reasoning further, it seems unfair to use semantically-loaded phrases early (or at all) within an introduction; in fact, it looks outstandingly non-encyclopedic. It also disadvantages the entire subject (The Zeitgeist Movie), if we assume most visitors read the introduction only, and that these visitors are sensitive to the meanings and insinuations of "conspiracy theory."

There is plenty of chance within the article to describe what critics and skeptics have said. The makers of the film would not want their film characterised by the prevailing viewpoint of armchair critics, even though those opinions are bound to appear somewhere in the article. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is conspiracy-based, and that is the consensus of all reliable sources (excluding the filmakers themselves). That seems to me, and those sources I've read, to be the thread which runs through the three, independent, conspiracies proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for issuing me a warning, and for sparing the other party, as though I was involved in an edit war with myself. Your actions as an administrator appear to be influenced by whose point of view you support. Why invoke some policy or another when you are clearly not disinterested? I suppose it is but one of the perks of being an administrator: being accountable to no-one. On the issue of reliable sources, it occurs to me you're more inclined to send me to policy pages than elucidate, in your terms, what a reliable source actually is in this case. Given that we are talking about a film, not the atomic masses of particles or the area of Arizona, it seems to me this translates into some vague kind of acceptance that newspaper articles (in other words, opinions) can be cited as sources of truth. The first problem with this approach is, opinions are like anuses: everybody has one. The second problem is that opinions have their place, that place being anywhere BUT the topical sentences of the article, which is where the facts should be. The film's content might be related to matters which are subject to a great many conspiracy theories, it might even have attracted critics who (wrongly) suggest the film advances conspiracy theories, but that doesn't qualify the film for being mentioned in the same introductory sentence as that term.

Have you done everything in your power to be impartial? I doubt it. Xabian40409 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any adminstrative action in regard you or the article, but the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and in the body of the article, is that the movie is conspiricist. If you can find sources, not themselves conspiricist, which say otherwise, you can make (or better yet, propose) changes to the body, and then to the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We (as Wikipedians) don't care what the makers of the film would want, we care what reliable sources say about the film. The makers' comments are allowable to some extent, per WP:SELFPUB, but they have to not be unduly self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops - my mistakee

Thank you for reverting my unfortunate typo "th eory". However, I meant the other edit. Thierry Le Provost (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

τ

The consensus for τ is keep —— ¡not delete!

76.103.108.158 (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The consensus was merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. Tkuvho (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Hello, I'm 174.56.57.138. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Linden, New South Wales because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

6 (number)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 6 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Since you refuse to use the talk page, see this thread. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Linden, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Early May 19 conduct

Hello. In last few hours I made following alarming observations:

1. Your use of WP:Rollback feature in edit warring, without even an attempt to explain it at its talk page
2. Your posting contained words contrary to the specified format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Number[sic] at WP: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Arthur Rubin, although you had about two hours to fix the own red-link mistake
3. Your unsigned posting

A user who edits Wikipedia in such way inflicts more damage than merit. If nowadays you are unwilling to spend an appropriate amount of your attention to Wikipedia, especially to edits involving extended privileges, then I advice you to take a wikibreak or restrict your activity to uncontroversial edits only. If you opted to continue the current course, then I will certainly support stripping your privileges on the first occasion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't know you and I apologize for interjecting on your talk page, but I just had a similar, recent dealing with Incnis, who I'd never crossed paths with before; in fact, I'd never even seen his name. Anyway, this warning is outrageous and uncivil, similar to this one that Incnis posted on my talk page. Warning Arthur for a typo and forgetting to sign his post? And then telling him to take a wikibreak and threatening him? Seriously? Shall we discuss your mistypes or poor English, Incnis, such as "to fix the own red-link mistake" and "I advice you"? As I pointed out on my talk page, Incnis' history shows an ongoing pattern of being rude and otherwise inappropriate with numerous editors. And it really needs to stop. So, Incnis, I'd encourage you to focus on improving your own shortcomings instead of continually going out of your way to initiate problems with other editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)