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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

2008 artical (death section)

Just wondering, why was my edit which added the death of British actor Reg Varney, undone? The revision is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008&oldid=252285898. - The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, and possibly 2007, there is consensus that, to avoid having the article be too long to be meaningful, a person must have 9 non-English Wikipedia articles in order to be considered sufficiently notable. Reg only had 2 non-English articles when I checked. In fact, that statement is just below where you entered the information in the file; it must have been in your edit window. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually just noticed it just after I typed this The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PanaceaUniversity.org Re: (Water Fuel Cell)

I decided to whois panaceauniversity.org and it a university run in the the US. More specifically, it is from WA.[1] In Canada, there is a law that specifically dissallows for an institution to be called a University unless they are clearly listed in that statute. Do you know if there is such a law in the US? I want to know if panaceauniversity is in violation of US law. --CyclePat (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no such law in the US. Actually, it doesn't even claim to be a "university" on its web site, only an "educationation nonprofit". Furthermore, most reputable private universities are 501(c)(3) (non-profit, contributions are dedictable), and Panacea is not, according to IRS Publication 78. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

By gaolie, for the love of God, I can't even find that law that deals with Canadian Universities. Don't you just hate it when you know something, and you know the information is out there, but can't find it. Argh! Frustrating. Which leaves me to believe, if it is that difficult to find that law (which I remember reading regarding Canadian Universities), it's may be just as if not even more difficult for the US. But... meh! Thank you again. --CyclePat (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Search results

I see the issue you raise. ie.: The second reference to google media (news) no longer contains the material that specifically mentions the fact. It has dissapeared from the search. That means, I should have added a link to the article, and then stipulated that the article was found via google media news. (even if I only accessed the google media news search summary). Argh! Frustrating. Muh!... So I made a reference mystake. Nevertheless, the fact is still there, somewhere out there. So how do you suggest we correct this. I would recommend finding the original article but that might be difficult... or maybe not. And finally do we need to correct this, isn't the original source sufficient (even though it has now dissapeared)?

Now for the first reference to Canlii. I disagree that the source is not reliable. Canlii specifically cites articles and takes the time to make the links within its database. In this case Canlii, with its reputable publishing status, indicates that the SCC case of Free world trust is cited within at leat 136 case.[2] However, it also indicates that is is in 134 cases[3]. Furthermore, don't forget the Provincial appeals case which indicates 7 case cites.[[4] It would be a true pain in the ass to cite every case, but in light of the afformentioned example regarding the google news clip, I fear this may be the only solution to properly rectify the problem. Nevertheless, Canlii is quite a reputable source and over the past several years I haven't seen information dissapear like on google. That is because Canlii is an independant database. If this is the case, we are hence citing information that has been independantly verified by Canlii, lexum, etc. In fact, I've checked and verified a few of those cases that refere Free World Trust. All appear to be in good order. Hence, I believe the information is currently reliable and meets standards for inclusion. I do not fear, just as the google example, that the circumstances may change. However, in light of the google example, I do understand the benefits of having a reference to every single case. Nevertheless, I dissagree with the necessity of having to implement the citations. Canlii is reliable and reputable. Note: This example is clearly different then the afformentioned google search. Also I did not count each case (WP:OR) and even if I did this is still permissible under WP:OR. Hence, even after the fact that I cite every case (already counted and cited by Canlii, there will still be some type of WP:OR (which is permissible under the circumstance) to count the number of cases and finally come to the same conclusion... that there are more then 148 cases. Nevertheless this is not the case because the number of cases cited is clearly published by Canlii so anyone can clearly see it. --CyclePat (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the question of search results in general, free+world+trust or even "free world trust" should have a number of false positives. If those cases which refer specifically to FWT v. (whoever it was; I'm on a slow connection at the moment) from Canlii would be an appropriate search result). I accept that a legal search engine may be stable and reliable, although we probably need sources for that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Yes their seems to be a cabal in operation who seem intent upon bullying and cajoling everyone into accepting their views in stormtrooper fashion, and steamrollering over any dissent. I strongly object to these bullyboy tactics. The methods being used by the anti-date link people are totally and utterly against the consensual spirit of wikipedia. If something isn't done about this, then any cabal can steamroller its views on everyone by brute force. This episode has got me quite worried. I hope we can work together to try and restore some sanity to this situation. G-Man ^? 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yobot task 10

Hi. I just noticed your message. Well, since we are doing the job I think completely substituting BD has many advantages. Probably, you have in mind the discussion about {{Lifetime}}. By having the categories fixed we skip the problem that the categories have to be rendered each time by the server, it's easier for newbies and bots to detect categories, etc. The last discussion didn't reach a consensus for Lifetime but it was a good motive for us to get rid of BD (because it's name doesn't show that it uses defaultsort) and add the substitution function for Lifetime. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS-date de-linking

_{Moved discussion to where it is relevant and to de-clutter Tennis Expert's talk page.} Your conflict of interest in this (commentary regarding my block of Tennis Expert), especially as an administrator, should persuade you enough to not generate comments such as what you have above; your commentary is obviously biased as you have participated in the date-linking discussions and voiced opposition to the de-linking. Those who were uninvolved with the conflict, such as myself (as I've not participated in the date-linking discussions), are able to make unbiased decisions. seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion. I didn't say I would take action in the matter, just that I believe TE to be acting correctly and in the best interests of Wikipedia in this instance. I haven't read through much of his edit history before his reverting the improperly running bot.

On the other hand, are you saying that an admin who has linked or delinked dates cannot take action on the question. That probably would eliminate all admins as having a COI. (If you're saying an admin who has linked dates cannot take action, but an admin who has unlinked dates can, that's absurd.) There is not a clear consensus. I think only Tony and Lightmouse think there's a clear consensus for anything. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't reverting just an 'improperly' running bot (was the bot blocked or reported?), but mutliple editors over dozens of pages. As an example that I gave at AN, he reverted seven times over three days -- gaming the system by not technically violating 3RR, although coming very close to it -- undoing not just the bot, but several different editors. This situation occurred on other pages as well, and it was not just the bot he was reverting, but others who were involved in the de-linking process.

I should apologize in that I was not inferring that you had conducted inappropriate actions, and I commend you for not taking any actions that would constitute wheel-warring. My comments reflected that you strongly disagreed with my block, and after admitting above that you did not read through his edit history, I (still) believe that it was because of your prior interactions with the de-linking discussions. I'm not discouraging you from discussing this further, as I appreciate all input, but I was worried that the spill over from the (sometimes) heated discussions regarding the de-linking issue would lead to hasty actions (not looking at you here). Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I concede that, given his past history, he can be blocked for edit warring even if an established editor might even be lauded for reverting the bot in question. Perhaps I should edit my comment to state that I don't necessarily contest the block, if you think it that statement appropriate.

And it's probably best that this discussion be removed from TE's page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No amendment is necessary; any such edits would be quite moot at this point. I've removed the relevant discussions from TE's page (regarding this), but if you need more removed, feel free to snip. seicer | talk | contribs 19:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, due to excessive frivolous requests at 3RR/EW, and the two incident reports at AN and ANI, I've given all of the parties involved in those discussions a warning to cease edit warring or face sanctions. The attempts to game the system, threaten other users with desysoping/recalling/banning has become tiresome. I came in as someone who was entirely uninvolved with the whole date-delinking and linking bit, and now wish I had stepped back from it. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Putative Attack and warning

Sorry, you're wrong, and your warning shows poor judgement. There is no attack here whatsoever

• (a)The remark was a reminded to Jaakobou, after Tiamut complained recently of being harassed by him, that his remark that he had absolutely nothing against Muslims or Arabs was not true, for the record says otherwise.
• (b) The diff referred to a remark, made while Jaakobou was coediting a page with Tiamut, who happens to be a Palestinian Arab, to this effect

• The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians

• (c)In any construal of the English language, Jaakobou, contextually, was telling his fellow editor, a Palestinian Arab, that her world (Arab world) and its cultural structure (essence), in so far as it is infused by Islamic civilization, is responsible for a nigh century long campaign of both terror and racism against the Jewish people in Palestine.
• (d)To make a diff. for editors who may not know this background, but who are called on to 'read' a recurrent quarrel between the two, is not to attack Jaakobou. Nor, to cite it as a reminder, when he affirms he is free of prejudice, is not an attack on Jaakobou.
• (e) This contextual attack on Tiamat as someone with a racist and terroristic Islamic culture was struck out, not becausea Jaakobou thought it untrue but because he reflected it might be possibly offensive.
• (f) If Jaakobou can provide me with a diff from his record in which he states that he has recanted on the belief he expressed there, and no longer subscribes to that idea, then I will not, if such incidents arise in the future, remind him of his past beliefs by using this diff.
• (g) In the meantime, I affirm once more the contextual propriety and appropriateness of making the remark you characterise, wrongly, as a personal attack. If I happen to be wrong in my review and judgement, by all means proceed with a sanction, since clearly this would mean I am not possessed of a level of understanding of the rules required for editing wikipedia with equanimity and respect. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning you handed out here was also inappropriate. When an editor is taken to ANI accused of offenses as serious as they were in this case, editors who concur with that judgement must be free to speak their mind. PR^talk 22:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in knowing that PR's response to your warning about his personal attacks, was to repost a 2006 personal attack on Jayjg, which got the original poster a block for personal attacks when he first made it. NoCal100 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, regardless of the truth of the accusation, both Nishidani and PR are making personal attacks, rather than making accusations which have potential evidence. (At this point, I decline comment as to whether the potential evidence is actual.) As for the "attack" on Tiamat, that doesn't appear to me to be an actual "attack", although I can understand Tiamat feeling it as such. Jaakobou could apologize for the interpretation, but I don't see an obligation to do so, even under his parole for past transgressions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's something of a mystery why anyone who cares for the project would defend an editor with Jaakobou's record. If the evidence of such as myself doesn't sway you, how about the evidence presented by two administrators at Jaakobou's ArbCom earlier this year?

This entry has section headers ".. is a tendentious editor ... is a revert warrior ... is deceitful ..." and this entry has section headers ".. edit wars often ... believes his edit warring can be justified". And they're admins one might think share his POV! Get back to me if you think I'm being unfair or if you think he's improved - as far as I can tell, the edit-warring continues and the ethnic harassment has turned quite ugly. PR^talk 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Template error

Hi there, I've reverted this edit since the nested template did not display and caused in turn the RfC template not to display correctly and the Bot to consequently remove that RfC from the list (see diff). Since I don't think you intended to remove this entry from the list of active RfCs, I hope you'll be fine with this reversion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I do think the RfC should be disregarded and restarted with the notes that the premise and the premise behind the premise are disputed, but I didn't intend to take it out. However, there does need to be an RfC about that RfC, as, because of the disputed statements in the premise and in Tony's interpretation of the lead, people may not be !voting on what they think they are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

An RfC RfC! Surely you can't be serious? :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. This is the first RfC that I recall where the status quo (both phrasing and meaning) are disputed (and that dispute is being relegated to the very bottom of the RfC, below the discussion section, instead of being above the discussions, as is clearly appropriate), and the RfC creator opposes the "changes" from the disputed text. It's out of process, there's an edit war about the content, and it should not be considered indicitive of consensus. As any result (except a "support" result) is clearly misleading, the RfC should be closed and (if Tony desires) restarted with a neutral lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I tracked down the error, it was the duplication of the date in this edit that broke the template. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused by the argument that any result except the one you happen to agree with would be "clearly misleading". Life would be so simple if we could apply that argument more generally. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ever sure the an apparent consensus supporting the "changes" he opposes would mean anything, but certainly a consensus "opposing" means at most that the specific wording shouldn't be in the MoS. As my views seem to be failing in the other RfC which I see as fair, I see the RfC as disruptive. The RfC borders on WP:POINT, but I'd consider it appropriate if he (1) noted the dispute(s) in the RfC lede (and stopped deleting the attempts of 5 editors to note the dispute in the RfC lede), and (2) proposed changes to the MOS that he supported. In that case, although I'd still oppose his view, it would be a fair RfC. As it stands....it proves nothing, and it would be a sign of good faith for Tony to withdraw it and reset it in an NPOV manner. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RFC

I've tried to get it added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details but Tony is opposing that on the talk page. Obviously we need more eyeballs on this, do you think there's a way forward? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Although Tony's RfC is, in fact, disruptive, it may not have been in bad faith. That being said, perhaps both RfC's should be listed in the watchlist-notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think two RFCs dilutes the discussion and will only cause confusion and aggravation amongst the community, which is why I was trying to avoid that avenue. Having said that, as this needs more eyeballs I've added a second proposed wording which includes links to both RFCs. Let me know if you think there's any problem with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexei Cherepanov

I assumed that the only reason he was allowed to stay was the 9 foreign languages criteria. The fact that a 19 year old ice hockey player who has never represented his country at senior level and did not even win a gold medal in a world junior championship (an under 18 gold would really be stretching the limits of notability!) can have his death reported in 9 non-English articles highlights yet another inadequacy of that criteria as a basis for inclusion on a year page. There are certainly more notable people who have been excluded on that criteria but in my opinion it is better used for exclusion than inclusion; there really are still too many people included whose international notability is quite limited. While something is better than nothing a criteria that cannot be applied equally to all year pages (internet reports from 30+ years ago are going to be somewhat limited!) really leaves something to be desired. I am not too worried if he gets included back in as eventually (maybe a few years) there might be a more appropriate criteria that can be used. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

request

Dear WP administrator

I am a Chinese Doctoral candidate, working on a subject which was in a page of WP.

I noticed this page was deleted despite being concordant with WP notability rules (as presented in WP notability page) Can you tell me how to proceed in order to restore this page in respect to WP standards and rules? Please answer in my wp page and to my email : guozhangluo@yahoo.cn Thank you.

Replied to your comment on your 2013 (etc) reversions

...which is on my Talk page. I'm saying this here, because I'm unclear whether you get notified when someone replies to your comment on a user Talk page. Dougmerritt (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is garbage

there was not one article I vandalized, I only tried to create one explaining why wikipedia is a HORRIBLE source of information if you cant come to realize that then so be it, but you dont have to destroy the pages created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ub0r (talk • contribs) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's only your opinion. He deleted your information because not everyone will agree with it. -- IRP ☎ 02:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bicentennial and Centennials

Hi, I receive the message.

I edit this events because many users of Wikipedia wonders why don´t edit in the sections of events the bicentennials and I wondered why too. I hope that this comment don´t be a bother for you. Thanks--Beaker35 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to point out that "we" had already agreed not to have centennials, bicentennicals, tercenntennials, millennials, etc., in the year articles unless there are present verifiable plans to comemmorate the event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck / Mikel Laboa

Hope your recovery is going well. I've started translating "Mikel Laboa" as you requested, although I've hit a few stumbling blocks. The original article is a very interesting read. Saludos. -- Tonyle 22:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Year pages

Hi, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Time#2009_and_other_crazy_speculations. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Arthur, I think you owe a duty to respond here.

Regards, NSH001 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

206.192.242.96 & OregonD00d

Given their editing histories, would you not say it is reasonable to assume these two are one and the same? There are no block-avoidance issues here, or anything of the sort. Though, given the editing patterns, and the way the IP was used to revert your reversion of "the D00d," he might be attempting to avoid 3RR. Might be worth keeping an eye on it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, also. No problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Abagnale

How can you say I am not a reliable source when I was the Chairman of the comittee at the University of South Carolina that booked him for the appearance he cancelled. The Comittee's name was Ideas And Issues a Part of the Carolina Program Union. I was its chairman and then the next year the VP of the Student Union. I am the Primary Source, this is not second hand or rumour. I did not read it somewhere. The Booking Fee was $2500 at the time. I cannot remember for sure who we booked him through. I still have a copy of the book signed by him that was given to me at the NACA convention--I may even have flyers promoting the speech as I kept them from most of the events we did. I am still in touch with a number of members of both that comittee and theunion in general all of whom could verify what I wrote. When the movie came out I got a few calls wondering what I thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.205.14 (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable source" is a term used by Wikipedia; it may not have the conventional meaning. Also, as noted in WP:BLP, we cannot generally use primary sources in articles about living people. I apologize, and I'd like to see the material in Wikipedia, but it can't be here unless published. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of nonstandard analysis

Hi Arthur, would it be possible to comment at the AfD? Katzmik (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Your only contribution in the discussion at Talk:Hollywood,_Los_Angeles,_California#Move_to_Hollywood is : "Serge is making trouble again." [1], so I'm reminding you about Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which states:

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's about your actions, not about you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. You cited no evidence, nor even indicated what you meant by "making trouble". If you seriously want to raise an issue about behavior then take it up in the appropriate place, with evidence, as I am doing here on your talk page. In absence of that, please retract the comment. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want me to present evidence, Serge? There shouldn't be any great difficulty. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously have an issue with behavior, then, yes, you should present the evidence and your argument about how that evidence indicates a violation of WP guidelines or rules on the person's talk page, as I've done here with you. But please do not make accusations about personal behavior in the middle of a discussion about content. That's a personal attack, by definition. Please retract the comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop "targeting" me

No offense, but I feel like you're trying to undo all my work. OregonD00d (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)