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 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

May 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. I E-mailed Aude a request to check my edits on Joel Skousen, as I believe my opponent in this edit war has added clearly incorrect Wikilinks to that article, specifically here. I hope this isn't considered a violation of WP:CANVASS, but that edit almost rises to the level of BLP violation, as it implies that the organizations in question are alter egos of the people, which, is clearly unsourced. If it's considered controversial, it's a BLP violation against the people linked.

I'm not convinced I violated 3RR, but I accept that I was edit warring, so I won't challenge the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Free energy suppression

You know perfectly well I didn't make any contribution I reverted a contribution you had deleted. I asked you specifically not to delete the sourced part of the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_energy_suppression&diff=215011644&oldid=215009344

Your comment on my talk page doesn't reflect this fact and it doesn't contain a link to the specific offence. With you being an administrator I assume you left this out intentionally. I asked you to leave the sourced information in the article. You then deleted the whole contribution again calling it irrelevant, you actually had a different excuse then when you deleted it the first time.

Additionally you vandalised my effort towards cleaning up the talk page. Posts where the goal of the editors is to obstruct the development of the article can be deleted. There is nothing wrong with this. Obstruction and personal attacks have no place on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

You are intentionally obstructing the editors by not communicating deleting the contributions and restoring the nonsense. Go-here.nl (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Whether you added them or reverted my deletion of the sections is irrelevant. They're still BLP violations which would, even if adequately sourced, be only marginally relevant to the article.
2. Most of the talk page sections you deleted seemed as sensible as your comments, and relevant to the article, not just to the subject. It's possible that one or two of the 7 sections you deleted deserved to go.
3. As you are apparently an experienced user, I will no longer give warnings as to obvious violations of Wikipedia policy before blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

from my talk page: I think I was wrong about it being a BLP violation. It's still irrelevant to the article, or it's relevance is WP:SYNthesized. And the talk page sections seemed coherent and potentially relevant to the article; at least as relevant as the sections you re-added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you forgot to mention this was resolved as your error here.

You also mention banning me in the context of your erroneous content dispute and you falsely accused my friend John of being a fraud. A few posts above this one.

Your only comment on the page is:

There's no reference for the accusations of fraud that I can find. If accurate, please link references to the appropriate statements. I see your version has a better tone, but I saw an unsourced change in content.

The talk page posts you had reverted also call Yull Brown a fraud. Just another case of the water car scam. Which I consider offencive but that is not important, it is erroneous and uncivil from an uninformed author.

I'm willing to look up referenced for the article where necessary but your lie based reverting does not help at all. Or do you have actual proof John's ZPE batteries are a fraud with your fraud accusation? We need documented sources of suppression not original research and false accusation.

Please help, thanks. Go-here.nl (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism ?

I read that you describe yourself as a Libertarian. Yet your edits on the Alex Jones page are less than friendly. Jones advocates the principles of individual liberty, and the drastic reduction of govt.

I find this puzzling, and thought it would be more productive to ask you why and give you full space to reply.

Yours

Evadinggrid (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The categorization of Jones as libertarian have been removed from the article. The term used there is paleoconservative, which doesn't strike me as particularly "liberarian".

However, even if Jones were libertarian, I cannot defend his comments which I consider factually or ideologically wrong. When even Libertarian Party members who make comments I consider idiotic, I don't try to defend the comments. For example, I believe the Libertarian Party candidate in 2004 was a known tax protester. Believing income tax should be illegal, and believing it is illegal, are two different things, and I could not support a candidate who believed the latter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an American and I am living in Britian, although I did used to live in Mount_Airy, Philadelphia. So, some of the more subtle points of american politics are a mystery. As an outsider I am aware that a political party like the Libertarians are composed of many different groups with possibly very opposite views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Community comment/reconfirm RfA

Dear Arthur, as an uninterested third party, I am curious to know if you'd be open to the idea of receiving a RFC/U or even consider reconfirming yourself as an admin? There has been some concern generated since you've been blocked five times since January 2008. I look forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate. To the best of my recollection, there have only been a few accusations of misuse of admin tools;

1. A misuse of rollback, after which it was discovered that we didn't have a guideline for the correct use of rollback;
2. A block (for the duration of April 1) of an established editor for what I took to be an April Fools joke;
3. Speedy deletion of a β user subpage as a misrepresemtation of policy (it was eventually deleted by user request, as consensus would not allow it to remain as a misrepresentation of policy). I was blocked for that one, but the block was found unfounded by consensus, although there was no consensus as to whether my action was correct.

Most of the other alleged misuse of admin tools have been found completely unfounded.

Four of the blocks were for edit warring (although only 3RR correctly once), 3 on same article. The other block, as noted above, was found inappropriate by consensus.

There doesn't appear to be a consensus that edit warring is or should be grounds for desysoping, unless admin tools were used in that war. All except one of my blocks are for edit warring (that one mentioned above), and I've never used admin tools in an edit war, mostly on the same article, and mostly based on a single field in an infobox; my current take being that, without that field, the infobox is misleading, and, under WP:BLP, should be deleted, even if the subject would prefer the tag gone.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Oh, sorry. Thank you for the advice. Brady4mvp (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy article revert

Your recent edit to this article has nullified my 2-hour work to reorganise it. Nothing was deleted save for a few unnecessary words for streamlining. If you disagreed with my added sources, why destroy all the work I did? My edit made the article so much easier to read- in which format a significant consensus-backed shortening of the article may have been more possible. Since Im quite new to this community, your laziness to correct the intro (which was the only part you voiced a problem with) has really demoralised me to make future contributions to this encyclopedia.Autonova (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted back to the format that I worked towards but left out the intro you had a problem with- original intro is now with revised format. Hope that's alright.Autonova (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything removed this time. I don't consider the structure better, but I can see it's mostly just a reorganization, although there appear to be some new unreliable sources added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

naysayer Evadinggrid (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RE : "------"

Hello there I was putting the "-----" in to produce a line so that the templates wouldn't be too close to the writing above them, I've seen several other users do it, and I presumed that maybe it was something new that was being introduced, it does work quite effectively. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

OK; it just seems odd to me. Sorry about that. I reverted one, as it doesn't seem to help, and removed one template, as it doesn't seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bentham Open

I really want to clear this up. If their policy is to have a peer review for all articles and they list it in their articles section. Why would it be treated any different? Tony0937 (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. From what I know of conventional professional journals, it doesn't seem adequate. The article in question states it's a "letter", and letters are not peer reviewed, unless specifically stated. I don't see "all articles are peer-reviewed" as adequate to cover a self-proclaimed "letter" unless it were more specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1.It is listed as an article, all articles are peer reviewed, therefore it was peer reviewed.

2 We have RS stating it was peer reviewed.

What else do you need? If you still have doubts you can always write them yourself at oa@bentham.org.Tony0937 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the "Bentham Open" article by Jones, et al. Is there a way that this can be resolved through AGF? Tony0937 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project

Actually, the "sourced" sections did not support the statements at all. The first example: "There have long been allegations that volunteer..." is cited with a link to http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ which is a non-sequitur. Further removals I made were similar leaps of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Please take another look; every statement I removed was not backed up with a citation that supported it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation to try to add sources to the ODP article. Most of the statements that are currently embellished with "citation needed" templates appear to be descriptions of criticisms of ODP or weasel-worded statements alleging various improprieties by ODP. I am not aware of much in the way of reliably sourced reports on any of this -- these criticisms were mostly "published" on websites maintained by disgruntled former editors and frustrated SEOs. If I were not affiliated with ODP, I would be inclined to remove much of this material as unsourced, but I can't do that due to COI. I'll look further into the matter of documenting the unsourced elements of the article, but I promise no miracles. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Time Times (2008-06)

	Time Times
Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier
News Recent Project News Article count at 1091! 979 are unassessed though, plenty of work for us to do. Project member count reaches 16 members! Keep inviting all your WikiFriends. Award offered—Since 2008-01-05, Sharkface217 has offered a Barnstar to the editor who can expand the article Timeline. It certainly needs it, now that it has been disambiguated from Chronology: Go to the Timeline listing on the Awards page to find out Sharkface's minimum requirements! From the Time Portal History of timekeeping devices reaches A-Class Status—On May 22 the history of time keeping article was promoted by User:Zginder to A-Class. This is our only article to reach this prestigious status. This was only possible with the dedication of the Tzatziki Squad. They are continuing to work on the article to reach Feature Article status. Merkhet was a DYK—The article appeared on the Main Page on April 28. With this text: "... that merkhets were Ancient Egyptian timekeeping devices that tracked the movement of certain stars over the meridian in order to ascertain the time during the night, when sundials could not function?" This also was only possible thanks to the Tzatziki Squad. Recent Time News The June Solstice takes place on 2008-06-20T23:59.
Archives • Newsroom
If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Arthur, I am tired of the attacks. I do not deserve this level of humiliation. If you and the others are determined to continue to humiliate me, it will be a shame on you all. I hope you reconsider. I have reverted it again. Do what you will. I think its become very mean spirited. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's discussing your conduct, not your personality. I guess I have to submit it to WP:AN3 for consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2000s

I appreciate your protection of the page, 2000s. However, there is quite a bit of media attention that the decade name, unies, received versus the other names.

Now, I'm biased that I came up with the word but you have to include it as part of the page's history. Not including my efforts is a shame and not fair.

Did you look at the pages videos? Would you like to see more articles written about the unies, then visit www.theunies.com/blog/.

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add content correctly. But if you would like to take the time to review the history of the unies, twenty-unies then visit the website. You can see articles and other information about the word. The years between 2010-2019 should be called the decies, the twenty-decies. The deci means tens and in roman numerals, decies is used to group the numbers between 10 & 19.

Thanks, Ryan Guerra

I look forward to your response.

Actually, I like the "uh-oh"s. With a little effort, I can find a 1999 newspaper article suggesting that one. Including your own suggestions for a name, unless accepted (not just mentioned) in a WP:RS, is clearly inappropriate under WP:COI and WP:NEO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles about the Unies that specifically linked the name to a person. How does that fit into the equation? They are talking and discusing a name while the give me credit for creating the name. Many common names do not link directly to a single person. Did you see the articles from the State, the Columbia, SC newspaper? The Gamecock? WOLO's Good Morning Columbia? WLTX - Evening News.

Irrelevant. It's your idea, someone else needs to add it unless it's accepted. I have some things I'd like to add to the Axiom of Choice article, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the discussion. I'm learning a lot. One more thing, as a mathematian, you use numbers on a daily basis. The counting numbers of 0 through 9 make up all the worlds numbers, correct? They are most often referred to as the single digits. Isn't the problem about naming the decade more mathematically then anything else? Uni means one, like unicyle and unicorn. It's also a prefix meaning to come together and make one uniformity and university. Every scenario in which you use a range between 0 and 9 could be helpful with a word like unies. Examples include: temperature, ages, weather, averages in sports and the missing decade dilemma. The next decade 2010-2019 has the same dilemma. The problem is again mathematical. You can use the word decies to describe all the numbers between 10-19. Deci means ten. Thanks for you time, and maybe you will see what I had to endure for 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunies (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I don't think the name of the decade is a mathematical question. I have no objection to your adding your proposed names for the decade(s) to the list of names (as I'd have to research all of them before reverting), but you really can't give it more prominence than the other proposed names. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. For the 2000s, there's been enough time that we could rationally demand evidence that a name in the list has been used;, rather than merely has been proposed. For the 2010s, I see no reason to think it should have different names than were used for the 1910s or 1810s, even if your proposal is rational. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The decade name is a mathematical problem. The decade name is simply a unit of measurement because the numbers between zero and nine can't not be group together in the traditional sense. In Latin terminology, uni - is a measurement of one numerical prefix, also listed on the page is deci- another unit of measurement numerical prefix. The only names for the decade that are listed on Wikipedia numerical prefix is the two that are presented in this discussion. Theunies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.144.39 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I noticed that you have edited out the reference to a webpage "How does homeopathy works" stating the reason that it is not ea reliable source and it is a personal assay. But, I think you should reconsider your action, provided the person who wrote the article is a professional pharmacist (holding a degree of PharmD, and as clearly stated on the webpage, it is a reproduction of his article published elsewhere. Considerin the present antipathy among many professionals towards homeopathy, it is not very surprising that his views would not find a place in an high impact journal. But, let me add he is not advocating that homeopathy works, he is just offering some possible cues for further research, which in my opinion deserve a small corner in the Homeopathy article. 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallenrm (talk • contribs)

If the article were previously published in a peer-reviewed journal, or if he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (from WP:SPS), it might be allowable. Otherwise, not.

You may note that I have not opposed inclusion of pro-homeopathy references from peer-reviewed not-specifically-homeopathic journals, although I have been removing those which are badly misquoted.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the German dub, Cell actually says "Oh, shit!"

9001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) got protected. Slow day at RFPP... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Haseldine MfD

Hi - not sure what you mean by "copyright violations" in your comment on this MfD as there's no copyright issue in this case. Would you mind clarifying? Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to, because it involves an editor who has changed his name and reformed. Basically, an editor had been scanning certain journal articles and putting them up on his personal web site as "courtesy reprint" copies, even though he is clearly not a reliable source by our standards. I don't see why this is any worse.

In the present situation, if we accept that the editor is the person, his own statements, even on Wikipedia, seem usable as WP:RS for the assetion that he said that, not as evidence of truth. I don't know why it would be relevant to any article but that on the person, but it seems to be considered such. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt he wrote those letters, however he's been using the talk namespace as a way to work around his COI ban by cross referencing this POV material from the articles he's not supposed to be editing. So the core issues are COI circumvention and intentionally disregarding the rules around self-referencing citations. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Haseldine dismissal

Regarding your last edit, I think I've interpreted this differently to you, based on the following passage in the ruling: "The Commission notes that the applicant was dismissed as a result of the publication in a newspaper of a letter in which he expressed certain opinions on the then Prime Minister's attitude to South Africa." Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed that sentence, but the commission also noted that there was adequate justification other than the letter for dismissal. In fact, I would interpret some of the analysis as wondering why he was still employed at the time of the incident. But I'm OK with a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Per this, please do not do that. I made a comment that was perhaps unwarranted, and got warnings for it, so I removed it and the reply solely aimed at my comment. How can you justify reinserting it without so much as a query or a notification? Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Actually, I thought it might have been better if you struck it out rather than deleting it, but if SQL doesn't have any objection, delete it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI Morgellons

Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Shamelessly off topic question

Did you end working in academia and/or doing math professionally as a career? I'm curious about what happens to people who win big competitions early in their careers, how their lives turn out. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been working in the aerospace industry, mostly. I've made use of some advanced math methods, and my present position involves some advanced linear algebra and statistics. I have been unemployed or semi-employed for about 15% of the time since I got my degree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Sounds like a good field to be in, linear algebra is such a terrific subject. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hereditarily countable sets

I thought surely that, if the countable union of countable sets is countable, then the transitive closure of a hereditarily countable set is countable. I was curious about the converse. But Consequences of AC says something surprising - the latter statement is form 172, and not only is it totally unsure of its relation to former (31), but the latter might even imply full AC. Eh?

Now, I just now realised that in the actual statement of 172, the notion of "hereditarily countable" is not quite Jech's definition, and that in fact I myself had made the same mistake in the Wikipedia article. Therefore I wonder if Consequences has used a strange definition and arrived at a strange conclusion, or whether I have missed something else.

Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not immediately. I'm presently away from home, trying to take care of matters for my father's surgery tommorrow, and I think I'd need to look at a hardcopy of the book, and possibly at some personal notes, to be sure. As this is not really a Wikipedia-related question, have you asked the other co-author of Consequences? His E-mail is on the site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious then, hmm. I have emailed him with the issue. Thank you for your time, and my well-wishes to your father. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Howard agrees as well, and says he will add it to the list of updates. He doesn't know about the converse (172 -> 31). Cheers, --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Show another disease/syndrome article where the reality is in question

See Fibromyalgia, specifically Controversies Ward20 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Multiple chemical sensitivity Ward20 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of those at least have recognition as a syndrome, even if the cause isn't apparent. Morgellen's hasn't reached that state yet, in that (at least some of) the symptoms haven't been seen except by "true believers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

School bullying

Any reasons, why my edit got reverted? Volkov ^talk 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not sourced, and may not be true. Victims can be chosen for not being in the in-crowd, or for mental characteristics (being a nerd), or for physical disability, or for being in the wrong place and the right time. I don't recall any instances of victims being chosen by size, other than the general tendancy to select smaller people who may not be able to defend themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove that big about Mexican slang #41?

It was not vandalism, it's true. I almost got killed not knowing that traveling through Mexico.

The spanish page has it with references: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuarenta_y_uno

My Spanish isn't adequate to tell if that's a valid reference (aka WP:RS) or a humor page. However, if you include it with the reference, I won't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted..

I made two edits to The Game. You reverted both with no explanation. The reference does not show that the game is currently played by a certain number (which is a weasel words number basically). What was wrong with me altering the text there? Second edit expanded on the context for the XKCD reference, making some commentary on it. What is wrong with that edit?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "First edit qualifies as WP:WEASEL, second is WP:SYN or unsourced; Undid revision 219338898 by ZincBelief (talk))" '. Although the latter comic contained the message "You just won the game. It's OK. You're free!" which is outside of the normal rules.' First edit notes that the XKCD comic's text. It is correct to say that Winning is not in the rules. The rules being those shown at the top of the article, which do not mention winning. Second edit is unsourced?/introduces point of view. Is that a joke? This is one source which gives a Weasel Words figure for the time it was written. It doesn't give a source for the current number of players. To establish a consistent number you would need more than one source. You could say "In January 2008 it was said..." --ZincBelief (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you want the article deleted, so I expect this explains your behaviour. Reverting multiple edits should be done responsibly with careful thought given to the content changes inherent and at least a brief explanation of the reasons.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it still seems the article should be deleted, but I'm in favor of improving it. Your edits do not qualify as improving it. (The source doesn't say that thousands are playing, it says that thousands have played. Putting in "at some time" changes the meaning considerably.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'Oops - you lose. Confused? It's actually a pretty simple idea, once you get the hang of it. But be warned, once you join hundreds of thousands of people around the world trying to outsmart and out-think each other, there's no going back.' This is the actual text. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Witness relations from second before first palne hit WTC

What was wrong about it again? Witness relation is not strong enough from political reason? Propaganda hits back? The name of person is not fake. This is real men and there are more who heard the explosion. Is he not true enough for you?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building.

Witness relations from second before first palne hit WTC

What was wrong about it again? Witness relation is not strong enough from political reason? Propaganda hits back? The name of person is not fake. This is real men and there are more who heard the explosion. Is he not true enough for you?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? We only have his word that it's a few (not 15) seconds before the sound of the impact reached him from above, and we don't have an accurate time for his observation, even in his reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Countable set

Dear Arthur,

I made a mistake when I wrote on the continuum hypothesis in the article countable set. I should have added that A must be countable for there to exist no set having greater cardinality than A and lesser cardinality than P(A) [the power set of A]. I am sorry but you don't have to get angry about it.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I only edited the GCH section. Nonetheless, as I noted in Talk:Continuum hypothesis, that the following are not equivalent in the absence of AC:

• $2^{\aleph _{0}}=\aleph _{1}$, $2^{\aleph _{0}}\leq \aleph _{1}$, $2^{\aleph _{0}}<\aleph _{2}$
• There is no cardinal m such that $\aleph _{0}<m<2^{\aleph _{0}}$
• $2^{\aleph _{0}}\not >\aleph _{1}$
• $2^{\aleph _{0}}\not \geq \aleph _{2}$

Which is to be considered the continuum hypothesis is an interesting question.

But, that being said, the section you added was much too long for this article. Perhaps there should be a link to continuum hypothesis, but the details should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Universe article.

Hi there!

I added a section to the discussion, and await your input.

Thanks! InternetMeme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Don't revert to edits that remove things from the 18th century page. The Washington Portrait is extremely famous, and Christopher Smart was published in over 7 languages and was published as far as the US and Canada during his time. His contributions to Children's Literature and Anglican theology, especially with his production of a hymnal and a major translation of the Psalms (one of three major 18th century translations of the work), mean that he is far more than a "local" figure.

If you continue to pursuit, you are acting to edit war. Cease and desist now. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented arguments on the talk page, and the edit summaries of the removals seemed to be more in keeping with Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Screw axis

Hi there, I've spotted your contributions on the back pain, spinal manipulation, etc pages. I could do with a mathematician to cast an eye over the screw axis page, to ensure things are fairly consistent and maybe point out where more attention is needed. I have recently merged the helical axis page, which I created (I am into biomechanics, but am not a mathematician), into the screw axis page. Thanks in advance.Davwillev (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Preventative war" or "preventative war"

Hi re our respective edits on David Irving. When you changed Preventative to preventative you shifted the link from preventative war to Preemptive war and changed the meaning of the article. As the latter article puts it "While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable." Was this your intent or was it that grammatically p is correct and I should have put the link as [[Preventative war|preventative war]]? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case of the first character of a Wikipedia article is not significant, so changing the case wouldn't have caused the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

King Rising

Could you please explain why you replaced a nonsourced paragraph to the article King Levitation without consulting others on the talk page?--Iclavdivs (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced. The video is a valid source, if available without license agreements. Just because I don't have a copy, doesn't mean it's not valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

There was a call to improve the introduction of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, yet you keep reverting a perfectly good intro. The other intro makes it sound like a warzone talking about what a big disaster the community is.

Whats wrong with the intro you keep reverting?68.111.172.226 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)