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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Vandalism on the "Life University" page

User 8.17.32.194 has so far twice vandalized the Life University page. He is deleting extensive portions of referenced information that is important to understand the history and political orientation of the institution. He has not posted any reasons for the changes in the discussion section and leaves the article with a biased POV in favor of the school. So far I've had to revert the article twice to undo his vandalism on October 6th and 7th. Please do something to stop it.~~AB

Continuing vandalism accusations

Arthur, people are complaining. Does your auto-edit-summary still churn out vandalism accusations? Can you deal with it, please? Tony (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes. Sometimes most of the edit is vandalism, but there is a constructive component. (I hate it when that happens.) Any particular edit in question?

Is it possible to reprogram the "Vandalism" tag of TW to read "nonsense, vandalism, against clear consensus, or from a banned editor"? None of those SHOULD require an additional edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was Greg, it was a mistake. I actually only intended to undo that edit as moving an attempted CFORK, rather than reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Many editors rely on the accurate description in edit summaries, to save their time examining every single edit. Some get offended when an edit of theirs which is not manifestly vandalism gets reverted with just such an accusation. Thus using false or misleading edit summaries in the way you appear to be doing is a great disservice to fellow editors. I don't think there is any issue with the underlying edits, which appear to be kosher, but the manner in which you continue to do abuse edit summaries when an increasing number of people are objecting to is pushing the good faith in your dealings. If you are unable to use an automated tool without it generating a false summary, I guess it would be best not to use it. Thanks for your understanding. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add another complaint, about your claim a week later on this edit[1] of reverting vandalism. I'm guessing you're actually disagreeing with Time magazine and the many supporters of Shellenberger by removing him from "Sustainability advocates" over disagreements about tactics. I've added the category back. --NealMcB (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Logistics Support System

The current description of LSS is wrong. What were my improvements flagged as advertising? The material is taken directly from the LSS web site which is a non-profit UN and World Health Organization sponsored agency. The existing Wiki is a combination of real and hypothetical when LSS is real. The LSS web site shoudl be considered conclusive. I copied the main description directly from the site and listed instances of its use from that site, with references to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.102.120 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's taken from the LSS web site, so it should be considered promotional material, although perhaps not technically advertising. It's still not a reliable source, as we define it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to take the LSS description of it's own website, I don't understand who would be more authoritative on this. Regardless, the current description (where did that come from?) is definitely wrong because it describes the solution poorly and as if it were a hypothetical when it's not. How do you suggest we improve and make it more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.102.120 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

[2], I was wondering how to get rid of that without causing a stink. RxS (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this how I talk to people?

I never can figure out how to talk to people. Is this how to do it? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

I didn't start any war. Why did someone just erase what I wrote. Have you censured that person? The Guardian and New York Times are valid sources. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Is this how I talk to people?

I never can figure out how to talk to people. Is this how to do it? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

I didn't start any war. Why did someone just erase what I wrote. Have you censured that person? The Guardian and New York Times are valid sources. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Are you receiving this?

Is this message getting through to you? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Pete

Only 4, actually...

The American Association of State Climatologists statement is expired and only in for historical references. And even several of the geological society statements are very borderline - "We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes" and "the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2" is very close to the mainstream. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming questions

Hi Arthur - I've recently been involved in the wild global warming talk page ride. If you have some time, I figured I'd ask you what you think about some issues, and I wanted to ask you in particular since we have diverging POV's and you've left at least a comment or two in there.

The first is the sourcing issue; scientific sources versus any sources. Clearly there is a large precedent for using only scientific sources for contentious science articles (and in fact science articles in general), and I think that this is good to avoid the newspaper sensationalist rubbish (even if a few good news articles must be thrown out with the bathwater), but there is nothing solid in policy (just some essays, and a note that the use of newspaper articles in science articles may depend on the situation) that requires that scientific publications are the only things that can be used. This leads to a ton of conflict and IMO POV-pushing on both the skeptic and alarmist sides of the spectrum, with lots of time being wasted as the normal contributors try to rein things in back to the scientific publications. I think that something in the policy should be firmed up, especially as the current WP:RS really sort of invites folks to find newspaper articles and scream bloody murder. The fact that the scientific pubs thing isn't stated up front makes me think that they aren't entirely to blame for it. What do you think about the use of scientific and popular publications, and do you have any ideas for a permanent solution to this issue?

Second, I'm sure editing the global warming related things takes years off of my life, and my patience has been worn pretty thin by the current general pissiness. Any ideas on how to make the environment better? Granted, it's a hugely polarizing issue, so maybe the only answer is to ask God, nicely. Awickert (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert non-vandalism as "vandalism"

Even if you diagree with something I kindly ask you to not label what clearly isn't vandalism as "vandalism". // Liftarn (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the Swedish reporter who is engaging in what would be vandalism if on Wikipedia. You are merely misinterpreting the legitimate sources, which do not say there was even a legal accusation of "organ theft". Your edit to Clea (band) on the other hand, really serves no plausible legitimate purpose, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ciring reliable sources is not vandalism. As for Clea (band) try searching for "loveshy". // Liftarn (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology article review

Hi Arthur! We're looking for some reviewers to get the sociology article to good status. Please be our reviewer if the mood grabs you! --Tomsega (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nuclearity

Hello Arthur Rubin, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Nuclearity - a page you tagged - because: A1: The article starts with the words "in mathematics", thereby giving the context. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that "in mathematics" provides sufficient context, but it would be inappropriate for me to reinsert the tag. For example, for a non-notable (nonexistent) ambiguous building, would it be sufficient to state that "In California, the Einstein building is used to store used nuclear waste." Even if accurate, that would not be sufficient context to identify the building. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. The expressions "tensor products" and "C*-algebras" leave me a little baffled—and I have a university degree in mathematics—but they seem to provide some context. I agree the article should state, in as direct a manner as possible, what nuclearity is: the property of ....

As it stands, the article is at AfD. I'm going to leave a comment there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Limit (mathematics)

Hi Arthur, regarding this edit, could you comment on the talk page about what you had problem with or selectively redo the parts of my edits that you approve of? I spent some time and think that I improved the article quite a bit, but I'd be interested in your opinion. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What bothered me is the mixed specification of limits; you had limit_x->1 f(x) = 0.4, but f(c) != L. I'll have to get back to that later. RL awaits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed a minor typo from my version. When you have more time to look over it, let me know what you think of my paring down of the article. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry Niven

Good to see science fiction idiom making it into broader discussion :). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the editing of Hans Joachin Schellnhuber page

From Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Bold added by id447

Focus on content

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Id447 (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming your good faith, but ignorance of the actual references. Much of what you're doing seems inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you find something inappropriate, please tell what you find inappropriate and how you reached that conclusion.

Id447 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR 'Warning'

The 3RR claim is incorrect in point of fact. The phraseology was altered significantly between edits (sufficiently to satisfy Nil Einne).

On whose authority do you issue this 'warning'?

Your attitude is completely baffling. *Four* times now I've had a sourced remark deleted without prior discussion. You made one of those reverts and did not even make a remark in the talk page, let alone attempt to achieve consensus. I think it's pretty clear who's edit-warring.Dduff442 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

35 (number)

Just out of curiosity: What was wrong with my edit ([3])? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term before, and, if I were defining "free" and "fixed", I'd probably reverse the definitions we have in polyomino. It seems consistent with polyomino and the few relevant hits in google scholar, so I guess it's probably correct. Sorry about the disagreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Mathworld is consistent with that definition, too – and I agree that these terms need getting used to. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop labelling good faith edits as vandalism

diff You should know better. ► RATEL ◄ 07:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can not assume good faith from the 99. anons. In this case, adding a template to an article without the article being in the template seems like vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But calling it "vandalism" is going to provoke hyper-reactions, Arthur; surely this much is clear by now. Do you intend to change the edit summaries you've been using? If not, I fear something will need to give. I am concerned about the potential to alienate editors—especially new ones. Tony (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming the first decade of the 21st Century

Hey Arthur.

Notice you deleted a large block of text on 1 Dec from this section of the 2000's decade page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_(decade)#Names_of_the_decade

Whilst I bow to your wikipedian experience, I wonder if you have not inadvertently lost some quite relevant and interesting detail, leaving something which feels ever so slightly slightly US biased.

As I'm sure you are aware there was some debate, especially in the British and Australian media about how to name the decade and at least in these territories "the noughties" has gained general acceptance. It is used frequently in print and broadcast media. I feel this is useful addition to the page, and certainly our mention of it could be better worded and sourced but it is surely not irrelevant.

Perhaps you would consider re-writing the text you removed, or if you do not have time I would be happy to have another go and place it on the discussion page. Do you think that is a good way to proceed?

best regards,

Mark --Mapmark (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The references then given didn't seem to support the statement that "the noughties" gained general acceptance, only (at best) general use in those particular media, and the text deleted gave equal time to "the naughties". A different reference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1735921.stm) stated that "the naughties" had achieved general acceptance in the British and Australian "cultural commentary industry", but that it had no acceptance among the British and Australian people.

Some time over the preceding week, some of the more common American uses (with sources) had been deleted; in fact, I don't have references for some of the ones I restored there, but there had been as good references.

Perhaps the Time section should be removed, as well, because that's clearly only their choices, which have not achieved general use.

It doesn't seem to me that the names are yet established. But perhaps you can convince me otherwise. Working it out on the talk page might be best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK Arthur, what you say makes perfect sense and thanks for taking the time to address my thoughts. So yes then I will have a go at redrafting that section with better references & paste it on the discussion page to see what others using that entry think. FYI, we cannot cite individual people in casual conversations of course but I have definitely head the noun used by ordinary members of the public so IMHO it is not just a construct of the media! Plus the word is now in the OED & dictionary.com so (although this doesn't prove common parlance) it is certainly ahead of some of the other examples currently on the page. Regards, Mark--Mapmark (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dishonesty

Why did you permit the allegations of dishonesty against me to stand uncorrected when you knew they were without foundation? Chelydramat and Beetstra have now retracted the claim. You allowed this to distort the edit-warring proceedings when you knew it was untrue (as stated in the edit summary here [4]). Whatever happened to integrity?Dduff442 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you were dishonest. I just said that, even if you were honest, you were still edit warring; and the material you wanted to add does not belong in Wikipedia, whether or not it was in the source material. I admit that I should have checked the accusations of dishonesty, but, as it doesn't affect what should be in the article, I didn't check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim you didn't check is not directly contradicted by the edit summary above. Fair enough. User:Nil Einne certainly *did* know the accusation was unfounded but allowed the allegation to stand uncontested.

The dishonesty allegation, endorsed by an admin (Beetstra, who has since retracted), was hanging over my head during the edit war investigation. It was unfair to proceed in this environment, forcing me to defend two allegations at once.

Beetstra's intervention was not only incorrect, it was improper. His objection was to the content but he first dressed it up on procedural grounds. I declared my intention to lodge an RfC, ceased editing and allowed Connolley's revert stand but still got blocked and rendered unable to defend myself against much more serious charges. The 'more in sorrow than in anger' interventions of a number of other admins take on a particularly aggravating tone of disingenuousness in this light.

Would you prefer to face charges of a breach of the 3RR or of dishonesty? If you were faced with both allegations, which would you expect an admin to devote most attention to? Would you be happy if the admin came to summary judgement on the edit-warring and completely refused to investigate the dishonesty allegation even when it was drawn to his attention?

How would you feel if this incident had occurred in the same way at a university? I'm just trying to broaden the scope of our imaginations with this last enquiry. What transpired was a travesty of due process reflecting none of the universal values that underpin civil society.

None of us is always as upright as we might hope to be, but we must nonetheless try to avoid a slide into total cynicism. This incident has offered me every encouragement to game the system, buddy-up with people and focus always on *my* objectives while ignoring points of principle. I'm going to make every effort to resist this encouragement.Dduff442 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy recovery...

[5] - I hope its very minor and you are back soon! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed indentation

Hi, as with SS hope you have a speedy recovery. Anyway just to let you know, I changed the indentation of your comment here as I wasn't sure it was intentional to have the two seperate parts on different indentation levels and it wasn't clear to me if you were the author of both until I checked. If it was intentional, you're obviously welcome to change it back but may I suggest you put your signature at the same level as the first one to make it clearer they're both yours? Or alternatively sign both comments? Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

First warning on United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 vandalism of External links. Flatterworld (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Second warning on United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 vandalism of External links. Flatterworld (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. A second editor has stated, on the article talk page, that most of the links are inappropriate, quoting different provisions of WP:EL than I did. You're on your own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just notifying you that Flatterworld has mentioned you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Evil saltine (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PUA page overhaul.

Hey, I noticed that you have an interest in the page “Pickup artist” (most likely since you created it :). I have studied the community and mostly RSD for a good time, and tracked down a bit of the history of how it grew.
So I untangled the mixing of different philosophies (creepy NLP and modern social dynamic studies) and overhauled the article.
I’m sure you like it. :)
But as you will see, it still needs some references to back things up. I wrote a list on what is needed on the discussion page of that article.
I can assure you that I wrote it all with good conscience of knowing this is true, and having sources. You can ask me for every single statement, and I will give you the source if needed. It’s just that I can’t offer a direct link, because often, there is no direct link, because e.g. it’s a DVD set that you have to buy for a thousand dollars (literally). (But hey, I can give you a bittorrent link ^^)

If you have any questions or critique, just write me at moc[tod]liamelgoog[ta]imanaz[tod]divan. :)
— 88.77.141.215 (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IP User Comment

Why the hell did you delete the band "2012"???? There is no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcelloho (talk • contribs) 11:50, December 9, 2009

Please see WP:BAND, and WP:CSD#A7. The oddity that the reason for the band's existence is notable, as reported in the article 2012 doomsday prediction, doesn't make the band, itself, notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Hey, I don't know if there was a row over this recently, but either way, I'm not sure this is legitimate use of the rollback. Grsz¹¹ 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? What's your specific objection? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo...

I fixed a typo here that potentially changes the meaning of a statement you have replied to. Your reply still makes the same amount of sense to me, but I thought you should know... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue

FYI: the page User:Ohms_law/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, an article which you contributed to, has recently been userfied. I planned on changing it to an article more generally about the Swedish Naming Laws eventually, so and assistance you can give in this respect would be more than welcome. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Last warning before ANI

Why are these edits "vandalism"?

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

They seem like good-faith edits to me, even if you have good reasons for reverting. Arthur, this has been going on for months. It is upsetting established editors and turning off newbies. Please let me know if you are not going to stop the accusations. Otherwise, I intend to take the matter to ANI. This will count as an official warning for that purpose. Tony (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Arthur appears to be still using Twinkle. The obvious solution if for him to stop, or to reconfigure the default edit summary tout de suite. I note there was a half-hearted request above asking if someone can help reconfigure Twinkle for him, but that's just Lame (caps deliberate). We all know he can do better. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first one didn't seem like a good-faith edit, in that it left nonsense in place. The second seemed to be made by the usual suspects without any indication that it was suitable, but probably not technically vandalism. The third was merely against WIkipedia guidelines and a 3RR violation, rather than bad faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so could you write tailored edit summaries, then? I know you get through a lot of monitoring, but the vandalism accusation, levelled continually, is assuming very bad faith. It would be nice to think that you're leading these people to do better, rather than making them feel falsely accused and thus angry. Tony (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first edit didn't leave nonsense in its place. The content made sense and was appropriate. The second was made by the "usual suspects"? What exactly does that mean? What you say about the third edit is also untrue. It was not a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and nor was it a 3RR violation as you claim. The edit history clearly reveals there were no previous recent edits by this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_tax&action=history. So basically, you have a habit of labelling others' contributions as "vandalism" unjustifiably, and then there apparently aren't genuine reasons behind your own reversions - they're apparently frivolous. So it's not a case of not being able to re-configure twinkle. It's your own behavior. I suppose that means "I'll" be banned now. Someone does something wrong, another points it out, and the one pointing it out is the one that gets in trouble for it. That's what I call smart policy. Arthur has a long history of doing this. For every one person that's complained on his talk page, there's probably ten more that just got upset and left. So, Tony, I think your focus is off. What you need to do is to ask for a conference to discuss policy changes on how to deal with people who skirt policies and commit more sly forms of abuse. ClimateGate (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is "Among philosophers, Kant, for exampleand Hallucinogens" not nonsense?

The "usual suspects" is the 99.* anon who shows no signs of understanding Wikipedia policies, and adds unsupported references to tangentially related articles, categories, and portals to various organizations affiliated to 350.org, possibly to improve those organizations' positioning in web searches. The purpose is clearly not to improve Wikipedia.

The third edit was a 3RR violation, being the 5th time that the Hansen section (still not sourced in online materials, and still having some nonsense in it, although that nonsense could be Hansen's). It's also mostly inappropriate for that article. I've trimmed it again. Please do not restore the nonsense without a specific, exact citation. Saying that it's somewhere in Hansen's book is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was the wrong person editing in violation of Wikipedia policies. That statement was merely an unsourced BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And you might be banned if one could figure out which editor you are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong about the first edit because I looked at the wrong side of the diff. I'm not changing what I said about the others. And the more you try to explain yourself, the more silly it looks as your explanations grow and change and you cross things out. ClimateGate (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

why?

i am tolding by user: ruler to have source for my edit. I am adding source for everything but you revrt me. why? did you look at source? EVERTHING is true total even if it seems crazey. please look at my sources and do not cal l me dubious anymore please. 66.157.232.247 (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as "sources" for Wikipedia articles. If the information is properly sourced in those articles, you may include those sources in 2000s (decade), although I have my doubts about the notability of those changes of power, in any case, but I probably wouldn't remove the entries if they were properly sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

okay. why cant wikipedia be sources? is wikipedia not true facts? thank you. 66.157.232.247 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, WP:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the paragraphs on Tertiary sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

I apologize for substituting my judgment for yours on this; my understanding is that Blyton actually wrote more mystery novels than Harriet Stratemeyer Adams, in several different series including Secret Seven, and the entries bear me out. But I certainly have no problem in assuming that your edit was made in good faith; most people think of her as a children's author first and foremost. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that; the anon made a number of clearly inappropriate edits around the same time, so I assumed they were all bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they were all bad. She was already listed under B, while the anon (and you) added her under E.

OMG. I completely overlooked the location of the edit and thought you had made a common assumption that she was not a mystery writer; rather than simply do a rollback without an edit summary, I merely reverted to the previous state. Completely my fault; my sincere apologies for one of my occasional leaps before looking. Thanks for keeping the list in order and I'll hope you forgive my error. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Your use of Reversion was wholly inappropriate. Obviously, you could disagree with the edit. But reverting implied more. As you now know. Find another way. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Very clearly, the See also in Monetization is appropriate. One can disagree with the connection, but one cannot disagree with the analogy. We should be able to work this out in a collegial manner. I did not revert this one. In any event, neither you nor i are vandals. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(and ec) Reversion implies nothing more than that there is nothing (or little) constructive in the edit. This is true. If I said "revert as vandalism", that would be inappropriate, and also not what I intended to say.

Also, it's not at all clear the #See also is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain the possible relationship between a Ponzi scheme and monetization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, I'm busy right now, but I will try to do better and find a citation and some authority on point. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Sestroryetsk

why did you delete this i am gathering info currently and will update it by 12am michigan time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober270 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you work on it in your userspace, such as User:Rober270/Sestroryetsk arsenal, and move it into article space when you have something to say? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vikram Samvat

New Year 2066 (Vikram Samvat) began on 14 April 2009 (Gregorian calendar). Therefore, 2065 – 2066 (Vikram Samvat) are correct for 2009 (Gregorian calendar), not 2064 – 2065! This also applies to other years on Gregorian calendar. For example, 2064 – 2065 in 2008 and 2066 – 2067 in 2010. Please, correct Template:Year in other calendars.

This code is correct:

{{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+56}} – {{#expr: {{{year|<noinclude>{{CURRENTYEAR}}</noinclude><includeonly>{{PAGENAME}}</includeonly>}}}+57}}

I wrote it in Template:Year in other calendars several days ago, but no one corrected the template so far!

James Michael 1 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Generation X Page Vandalism

Please do NOT remove references to Manga on the Generation X page. This was previously mentioned on the Generation Y page, and the source CLEARLY shows the manga boom starting with Generation X and continuing with Generation Y. It is a part of pop culture. It will also be expanded. Do not just delete information from an article. With it only mentioned on the Generation Y page, and with an admission of Generation X, it made it seem as if manga is only part of Generation Y, and that is wrong. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's part of pop culture, but not specifically related to Gen X or Gen Y by most "generational" standards.

It is a part of pop culture. And because there was a boom in the market for manga and anime, I think it fits in the article. There has been no further discussion on this except for a non registered user deleting the information without a real discussion. Please do NOT delete information without discussion. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reference is unreliable; in fact, it seems to have no credibility whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't my own reference; someone else added it to the Generation Y page. The article is written by a development specialist at Johns Hopkins HealthCare LLC. This is research. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be unpublished research, at best. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At best? Does this need to be a scientific article? There are other references. I don't know why something that is accepted by the majority of people is being deleted. There was no discussion on this at all. How you can deny the boom of an industry is mind boggling. If you look at the history of manga and anime itself, the rise in popularity is with both Generation X and Generation Y. You seem to just delete information left and right with no real discussion or consensus. I will ask other registered users to contribute and ask that you stop deleting these references in both articles. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at best. Even in pop culture articles, we need sources with a reputation for fact-checking. If this were published in a scientific journal, or even a newspaper, or if the authors were recognized experts with peer-reviewed publications in the field (and the article could be credibly attributed to those authors, rather than an unidentified party stating it was theirs), it would be allowable as a source. The source would specifically have to mention Gen X and Gen Y, rather than just mentioning years, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is one article that mentions both Generation X and Generation Y. Others mention dates, or a specific time period, which encompasses those generations. Why does all pop culture have to be mentioned in a scientific journal? Doesn't the history of manga and anime support the fact that manga (and anime) are part of the pop culture of these generations? Manga started becoming popular in the 1970s and 1980s and throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It continues to be popular, but the great "boom" occurred during Generation X and Generation Y. Also, if we go by what you say, then no mention of music genres, Harry Potter, or other references to pop culture should be on either Generation X or Generation Y without "scientific research". I think the reference was a decent one. Doesn't anyone remember the huge popularity of Hello Kitty growing up in the 1980s? I was born in 1981, and I watched a lot of anime. Here are some other links (not major references though) that touches upon the history of Japanese art. http://www.contemporaryartproject.com/cap/otherCONTENT/superflat.htm http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/category/styles/anime-styles/ http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/takashi-murakami-on-why-the-war-helped-create-japanese-pop-culture/ http://www.thegreenwolf.com/pcmreviews.html

Also, the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams http://www.anime.com/Japanese_Culture_and_History/ Both anime and manga were becoming more mainstream in the 1990s. I'd also like to mention (but not use as a source obviously) that this is in a 1990s article on Wikipedia itself. If manga and anime boomed when Genereation Xers and Generation Yers were growing up, it should not be left out of pop culture.

I'd be more than happy to read these books and others to expand the articles, as well as the anime and manga pages on Wiki. You don't always have to use the terms "Generation X" "and "Generation Y", though that article used first did because it was a research article. If it falls in line with the dates for the generations, that should be fine. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I let the other editors know that I am aware of the three-edit rule. I do not plan on adding anything back until further discussion. I respect the input from everyone involved in this discussion and will agree to the consensus until further review. I am glad the reference was removed from the Generation Y page as well. My main concern was pop culture references that started in Generation X having no acknowledgment of that on the Generation Y page. I understand the concern for valid references on Wikipedia. I still think the source is a good reference, but maybe it can be used as a secondary reference to back a "published source"? I don't see any harm in secondary sources if it is research that supports a stronger source.

I only ask that the the above links be looked at, and the history of anime and manga and popularity and rise of both in Generation X and Generation Y be taken into consideration for possible later addition to both articles. I acknowledge that the article pages for both manga and anime somewhat touch upon the history of both, but still think they are an important pop culture. The enormity of Comic-Con attests to this. I added one reference I found on the subject that incorporates the dates within Generation X and Generation Y; the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams. Right now, I can't think of others, but there are some tied into Japanese History/Modern History, and how anime and manga became popular not just in Japan and Asia, but in North America, Europe, and around the world. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Not trying to have an edit war, just new to all this.

Not sure if this is where to discuss this

What is an "inadequately sourced BLP violation" and what would need to be done to have it be adequately sourced? I'm assuming a link to the quote? Just want to get this figured out.

It seems ridiculous to me that the section titled Review should contain unfactual information but that any attempts to edit the site to address this should be a problem. In fact, the Rebuttal to Reviews shouldn't even be necessary. What should be necessary is that the reviews be factual. They are not. I found the movie to have its share of flaws, but the supposed ones listed in the reviews were not legitimate. I have no desire to defend the movie, per se, but the integrity of Wiki is the issue here. This Wiki entry seemed entirely biased. It should be neutral if it cannot substantiate its claims. The documentary did not use "blurry pixelated photos that don't show anything." The narrator did not hint that the plane crashed in the Atlantic. These are untruths. Truthful, critical reviews would have been appreciated. Blatantly untruthful reviews do not deserve a place on the page.

S E Crowder (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)S E Crowder

S E Crowder (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)S E Crowder —Preceding unsigned comment added by S E Crowder (talk • contribs)

Although the reviews clearly are factual, that is not what is relevant to their inclusion. What is relevant is that the reviews are from reliable sources. On the other hand, the "rebuttal" is clearly not' factual, does not come from an identifiable reliable source, and specifically accuses the reviewers of lying, so cannot be included in Wikipedia, per WP:OR and WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

It wasn't editing years, the strangeness of 2010, 2011, 2012 was something I was investigating. Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Sorry. Feel free to unblock, but it did make the change after I reverted it. I'm going to bed now. I asked, though, following the final RfC, and it seemed that year in X was also supposed to be exempt from automatic delinking. There were at least 100 of those articles edited per WP:MOSUNLINKDATES, although I don't know whether the edits were appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)