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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

Alternative names for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

I attempted to add the following to the 'Alternative names' page.

CFS/ME

- CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK. The Minister of State, Department of Health, has stated that "we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause.

Unfortunately Sciencewatcher keeps removing this, and has now been joined by WLU. It is the same source and information I used to back up the official name on the 'CFS' page, and the acceptance of the WHO classification is stated by the Health Minister in Parliament. As shown on page 5 of the Parliamentary Inquiry CFS/ME is the official term used in the UK.

Sciencewatcher keeps stating that Parliament is not a reliable source, which clearly it is considering it is the Government speaking for the NHS, NICE, MRC, & The Blood Service, which they control. Basically it is a ridiculous argument.

The alternative names page should have this information, as clearly it is an official name.

Arguments I have used against their POV on the talk page :

Kings College - Kings college are not Parliament and still have had to use the official term for their heading, CFS/ME. Also, Parliament controls the NHS and therefore the official term, unless you are saying that they are lying, which of course would be ridiculous. Meaction UK - Not relevant to the facts. WHO - Is not relevant to the official term used in the UK. It is however relevant to the UK classification, which is neurological in accordance with the WHO ICD-10. Parliamentary Inquiry - States that CFS/ME is the official term. (Use of any other name is not relevant to the facts, as they state that the official term is CFS/ME) Parliamentary document - The statement is not the opinion of a single parliamentarian. It is a statement by the Health Minister on behalf of the NHS. (ie. NICE, MRC, UK Blood service) The Health Minister at no time states which is the official term out of the alternative names she uses. DWP - Is controlled by the Parliament. This issue is not what other names are used elsewhere, but what is used officially in the UK. As proven, UK Parliament states the official term to be CFS/ME. NICE - The official guidelines use the official term, CFS/ME.

Again, Parliament has stated that "...hence we have used the term CFS/ME. We have used this term as it is the recognised term in the UK." There it is in black and white. Again, Parliament has stated that they accept the WHO classification of CFS/ME as neurological, they have not said that it is a neurological condition, but that they accept the WHO classification. Black and white fact again.

Annette Brooke is not the Health Minister so I suggest you re-read the source. The Health Minister, Gillian Merron, speaking for the DOH & NHS, states "I want first to put on the record that we accept the World Health Organisation's classification of ME as a neurological condition of unknown cause. " Fact.

This has no bearing on the ME, CFS, CFIDS, or PVF sections. It is about the official term in the UK.

As this is a world page, it has to reflect the terms used throughout the world. CFS/ME is the offical term in the UK, and therefore needs it's own section. It appears that you are ignorant to how the UK Parliament & NHS work. Parliament speaks for them, they control them, and all other bodies within the NHS. I again suggest you re-read the sources provided very slowly.

I would again appreciate it if you could take a look at this.

Many thanks UYBS

—Preceding unsigned comment added by UYBS (talk • contribs) 23:33, June 25, 2010

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Mikemikev, who was indefinitely blocked as a result of an ANI discussion during the case proceedings, is site-banned for 12 months. Until his ArbCom ban expires, he may only appeal his block to the Arbitration Committee, via the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 22:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Green New Deal

Dear Arthur,

the page Green New Deal I feel it definitely requires more information, it is made of just one concept with regards to the creation of the Green New Deal without considering the developments whatsoever. I feel it should have more information on how it has progressed to what the Green New Deal is today rather than just mentioning where it was born. Just a thought, let me know your views.

Thanks and regards Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in a different section; definitely not in the lede. It should be noted that all the information you added is from the EEC website, although it's possible some is reprinted from other sources. That may not be the best source for developments, unless, of course, the EEC coined the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Politics of global warming (United States)

With respect to Politics of global warming (United States) please make yourself familiar with the three revert rule. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags

When adding tags, as you did here for example, and the issue is not immediately obvious can you add you concerns to the article talk page? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

re:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc."

from WP:MINOR. --Gwern (contribs) 10:41 29 August 2010 (GMT)

That one was intended as a "revert meaningless" (but not vandalism) edit, which is considered "minor" by default. If there was a way to make "rollback" not be minor, I would probably do that.

However, your comment is not suitable for an invisible comment; but I should have moved it to the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the bad craftsman who blames his tools. If you know your tools are lying, and you choose to use them anyway, then the blame is yours. I notice you did it again.

And as it happens, my comment was 100% suitable for a hidden comment; I'm surprised I have to tell such an experienced editor as yourself this, but I guess guidelines are not your thing - Help:Hidden text specifically says that an acceptable use of comments is "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). Larger amounts of information should be prepared on a subpage of the article's discussion page or in user space." --Gwern (contribs) 14:51 29 August 2010 (GMT)

On second thought, it looks as if it were "4chan" vandalism, which I should have reverted immediately. In any case, if you write the comment on the talk page, I won't revert it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How very magnanimous of you. --Gwern (contribs) 14:51 29 August 2010 (GMT)

Tags again

You tagged SOoCC [1] apparently in error - GCSP isn't a political organistaion. Could you clarify this on the article talk page, please? The tag has now become hostage to consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

European Energy Centre

Hi Arthur,

can you advise how to make the article increase its notability. There are references to publications with the United Nations Environment Programme, the intergovernmental International Institute of Refrigeration and more. Can you help me understand what it is missing more specifically. I am now working in bringing in links from other related sources such as Green New Deal, renewable energy etc. thank you for your help,

Regards, Spottiswoode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottiswoodestreet (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes for recovered health for your family.

I see your wikibreak notice, and just wanted to wish your wife and all concerned a speedy recovery and enjoyment of good health. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki ELs

Hi. Did you see the talkpage discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:External links‎#Off2riorob excluding open wikis under 12? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Although I believe Off2riorob is correct here, (an open Wiki cannot be stable), there isn't consensus for that change, and it's not required by any policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I assumed you had only read the editsummaries, which were inherently confusing. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators with Wikipedia articles about them?

I posed the question in a discussion related to User:William M. Connolley if there is any administrator left, who is using his real name and is notable enough to have his own article. I may in fact be in a need for such an administrator. Is there any way to list or find administrators with articles? I could not find any list, but my 11 degrees of separation brought me here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I fact I asked the question here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Remedies section is a train wreck. Not too many answers. Your name came up as number two. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can think of a few but I don't know if it's polite to "volunteer" another user for something without asking them first. Why not ask on AN? 09:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.12.106 (talk)

It may not be reliable, but you can try to use database tools to find the intersection of the categories "Wikipedians with articles" and "Wikipedia admins", not counting the few people whose articles state they are Wikipedia admins. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Failing to discuss

You are telling me that I'm failing to discuss on Chiropractic. Please go ahead and check my contributions for the past 9 days I have done nothing except discuss that article. If I'm a bit slow to respond to some issues, that's because I have things to do outside Wikipedia. QuackGuru has been requested not to contact me on my talk page due to personal attacks, and I have reverted his edits on my talk page just as he reverts all my edits on his talk page. He knows this. The article talk page is not the place to resolve personality issues and I will not go into that on the article talk page.--Anon 10:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You may, of course, remove any sections of your talk page (if you also remove all replies). You may not remove sections of Talk:Chiropractic other than your own comments, and, even then, not if replied to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If all you have is uninformed personal comments about contributors I suggest you stay out of the discussion. Keep it focused on content on talk pages.--Anon 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't already involved, I'd block you for WP:TALK violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Anon 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Modular arithmetic

Hi there, Dr. Rubin: I am a bit disappointed that you had to delete my many hours of work on the topic of Modular Arithmetic/Functional Representation, but I have discussed this topic at length on the Discussion page under the heading by the same name, as I proceeded to contribute improvements to it. Could you please address my concerns by reading my extended "blog" there?

There has been little focus on this topic for at least six months, when I first contributed to it, until this week: I don't know why the sudden interest on this topic's content. Until a few days ago, no one had noticed some of the horrible math that had been posted there, in that same section.

I'll look forward to getting your feedback on the Discussion page. Toolnut (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 sanity

Yeah 9 11 was carried out by 19 cave dwelling Muslims who are openly funded by CIA. Even the Jundallaah terrorist leader admitted it. Wikipedia is for fact suppressing fagots like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.114.241 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Arthur, I have removed a long rant posted by the user above from the 911 CTs talk page. I see you have already warned him about being blocked. Has the rant been taken into account for that? 217.187.236.15 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just now recieved this personal attack on my talk page, [2]. Maybe a block is in order 217.187.236.15 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Truth About Limits

Hello Arthur,

Sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate your time. I won't repost it. My mind is distraught with the notion that there are instructors translating limits of infinity as being DNE. Unfortunately as a private tutor of 21 years in AP Calculus and Physics I have to contend with an instructor who doesn't understand this. I was hoping there would be a place where reason could have its say and this misconception could be avoided by future students seeking clarification. As a side note, I even used a TI-89 ROM on my computer to calculate a limit, took a screenshot of it, printed it out, and had the student take it to her instructor. .. and still the instructor insists that the answer on the calculator is incorrect. Her interpretation of infinity is equivalent to DNE !! Help me free the children from this incompetence. Oh the madness !! :)

I have no doubt that your sense of humility has aided the path to your own enlightenment.

Your counsel is appreciated.

Your friend,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.234.206 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Without" in Chiropractic

Wow, I sure missed that one (the non-sequitur "without") when I was looking it over. Good catch! Thanks for cleaning it up! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, about September 11th, I made the change (which you reverted) after discussion with another user. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)