User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

9/11 terrorist attacks

When you get a chance, can you please respond to this?[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tetration

Mr. Rubin, Would you be disturbed if I changed the title of the section Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles to Talk:Tetration#Merger proposal. Since that is where the merge is being discussed, I think it is worthwhile. Awaiting your answer, Cliff (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please leave an anchor for the other tag, as that's how it's linked in various pages, including some ANI archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

done, thanks. Cliff (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical edits

Greetings Arthur,

Firstly, I would like to express my regret at the confrontational disagreements you and I have recently had over various mathematics pages. I decided to join Wikipedia, not for the purposes of seeking arguments, but to contribute to and improve this encyclopedia, and I am enthusiastic about doing so.

Having said that, your last message to me contained some material which I feel obliged to respond to. And since the editing itself has stopped, taking the matter here seemed more appropriate. In your last message to me you said,

As you well know, course notes are not considered a reliable source; and the reals form a topological group, so a_n → x is equivalent to a_n − x → 0, and the statement generalized becomes 1/n → 0, which seems simpler than x + 1/n → x. But that is trivia. I'm just pointing out that your latest change is a style change, rather than a substantive change.

First of all, I have to say that I resent your tone. Although I have lurked and read articles here for some time, I have only recently begun to edit, and so as a matter of fact I did not 'well know' anything about course notes with regard to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I was providing information in good faith, in order to persuade you, through rational argument, of something which you seemed to be denying. Furthermore, the material I provided did contain a proof, and I am sure that you have the mathematical ability to evaluate it and judge its validity! Incidentally, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out where exactly course notes are mentioned on the page you linked to me. (I'm not saying they're not there, but it's a big page with a lot of information and I'd be grateful if you could thus be more specific.)

Finally, I must just point out that if my latest change is nothing more than a stylistic change, then so was yours when you changed what I had originally put in the first place, (in the process falsely accusing me of having made a serious error.)Telanian183 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you're going to add explanatory material, you need to be sure it's correct; otherwise, in a mathematical paper it would be worse than useless. As for "course notes", they fall under WP:SPS; unless prepared by a recognized expert (with published papers in the field), they are not usable as references.

I, personally, consider

f(x + a_n), where a_n → 0

clearer than

f(a_n), where a_n → x,

and there's no difference in the reals. f(x + 1/n) also fits better in the former grouping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

But the material that I added to the page was correct, so what's your point?Telanian183 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

Could I send you a brief email about an admin-related topic which would benefit from discretion? My email is listed on the top of my talk page. Thanks, Ocaasi ^c 08:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice that the "toolbox" box of links next to user talk pages contains an entry for "E-mail this user" unless the user has disabled it via his preferences. Thus one can receive e-mails from other users without revealing his e-mail address to the world. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JRS, but since the whole MW 1.17 update, my .js has been bonkers and nothing is working as it should. So I have no such link in my Toolbox, believe it or not. I have a dedicated (throwaway) wiki email account, so Arthur can contact me there, and it's set up through the Special:Email feature, so that can work, too. Thanks for the help, Ocaasi ^c 09:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your vote on Talk:Hard disk drive

Arthur, I took the liberty of changing the typestyle in your !vote so your meaning was clear for those who speed read. Please look at my change and revert if you don’t concur. Greg L (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Maybe if you had taken a read of the last comment made by me, on the Talk:2010 article you would know that I stopped and apologised. Maybe if you saw the latest 2010 article history, you would know that I let Julia Gillard be removed. I did not abuse 3RR. You could have told me nicely that what I was doing was wrong, instead of making me look 'foolish'. I had the facts; they werent taken too well on the talk page. So I said I wouldn't continue. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a misuse, unless you've been previously warned. You had 3 reverts in a hour; even if you feel you're correct, you should have stopped previously unless removing a BLP violation or blatant vandalism. If you're aware of 3RR, you can and should remove the warning, but it's not a misuse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." -- I may be a little thick headed for a 14 year old, but when I know I am wrong, I'll apologise and admit it. With all due respect in this case I don't feel that I am in the wrong. If you notice, you'll see I performed 3 reverts, not 4. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. See WP:Edit warring; "3RR" is a bright line, but edit warring not in violation of 3RR can still lead to blocks.
2. If your edit of 0500 UTC was a revert (which it may, technically, be), then that makes 4.

You did stop before the warning, but it still seems reasonable to remind you of the policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Never in my 5 months here have I had a User give me a warning message. All other users did the correct thing and tell me nicely, better yet do their research, maybe read my latest contributions on the issue. I find that offensive. Dramatic that does sound, but it's not every day you get slapped with a warning (for something I didn't do). 3RR clearly states more than 3 in 24 hrs.

1. It had been more than a month

2. My latest edits were based on the WP:RY Policy.

Barring the 3RR mistake, I specifically apologised to everyone. I put my words in Italics so people would notice it. And this is the wonderful message I get back?

I have absolutely had it with always apologising first, on Wikipedia and in the outer society. Don't people know that there is always two sides to every story; or that it takes two to tango?

I'm not taking this out of line. I'm describing what the situation is.

To some it goes in one ear out the other, hope not for you: I am sorry. I am sorry if I had offended you; annoyed you; caused any inconvenience. I am just sorry...I don't know what else to say... -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Current events portal

Hi. Please discuss the relavent reverts made to Portal:Current events/2011 April 6 with 99.112.214.205 (talk · contribs) rather than continuing the dispute over minor wording issues. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a minor wording issue. 99* is misquoting the sources, and I suspect he knows that. I've certainly mentioned it enough on relevant web pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Innerpartysystem chocolate record

Maybe not kidding :). I can't access the source, but others seem to agree: [2] and [3], for what they're worth. That's one way to screw up your needle. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon second glance, I think you removed the dab for vinyl and left the chocolate part. I'm confused. Anyway, I undid it and added refs to support the chocolate record. (This has been a very strange 2 minutes.) Revert me if I am wrong. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

why mark as a minor edit?

Just wondering if you had a reason to mark this[4] as a minor edit. Removing content is described as an example of when not to mark an edit as minor. Thanks. Shootbamboo (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 GFHandel.   00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aboud El Zomor

Hi, just dropping by to let you know I removed some of your tagging on Aboud El Zomor. In my assessment, the article was not eligible for CSD A7 (even the old version) because a claim that he was a participant in the successful assassination of a head of state indicates why the subject is important, and therefor the article survives criteria A7. I mostly agree with the remaining tags you placed, however I have now removed them after improving the article. Feel free to bring the article to AfD if you still think it needs to be deleted after the changes. Monty₈₄₅ 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whittemore Peterson Institute ‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Byanose (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. Arthur Rubin is not edit warring. However, you might want to look in a mirror. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

2120s and 30's

I was going to create an artical for every decade of the 22nd Century, to me it seemed silly to stop at the 2110's as every century before it goes from begining to end, I agree to go into the 23rd Century would be rediculous, but why stop 1/5 of the way through, what if I combined decades such as 2140s/2150s 2160s/2170s 2180s/2190s, would that be acceptable, please give me an answer.

-user talk:Phoenix500 —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

I seem to recall that 2110s was created early in the 2010s, on the basis that something could be said about decades starting within 100 years, but not beyond that.

Combining decades is clearly not acceptable.

And I'm going to revert 2120s, if that's your justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I have reverted the 2120s artical back into existeence, before you delete my contributions, please consult with me and maybe we can compromise. User:Phoenix500 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

I will however assure you that i will not bring back the 2130s artical until our agreement has been reached, we will not editwar.-(talk) 10:54, 22 April 2011 (PDT)

I still don't think it's appropriate. Please communicate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

David Koch

Hey Arthur Rubin,

I'm new to wikipedia, so bear with me. Today you undid an earlier edit of mine. In the comments section you said that it "introduces a statement not supported by the sources." But my edit was simple a stylistic one. The original sentence read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund some organizations within the American Tea Party movement." I changed it to read, "He is a major patron of the arts; a funder of conservative and libertarian political causes, including some organizations that fund the American Tea Party movement." Any help or guidance you can give me to understand the problem will be much appreciated. Thanks. Churchillreader (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If "funding" were transitive, or if any organization that funds a Tea Party organization were considered a Tea Party organization, then that would be an acceptable restatement.

For the first, if I contribute to United Way, and United Way contributes to, say, the Cato Institute, that doesn't mean I contribute to the Cato Institute, does it?

For the second, if I contribute to a Tea Party organization, that doesn't make me a Tea Party organiztion, does it?

Details are important, especially since most of the article is sourced to extreme critics of the Kochs and the Tea Party, who are also journalists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, Arthur. I appreciate your help. Churchillreader (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an understanding now.

I think I now have an idea of what I can and can not create, I am new at this, I have improved some articals, and apparently screwed up on most of them, that is why I had a friend of mine delete some of my articals, but a few I am willing to try to fix, out of all my articals I feel these decade articals I am having the most success with, as I am researching off this website as well as on, I will go no further than the 2190s, all I request is give me the chance to reach my goal first before you revert them. After these few decades of the future I will move to the past, as our website offers only as far back as the 1690s BC, I will aim for 2490s BC but this will take several months, let these few future decades be my test before I waste my time on 1000 years that will be deleted no matter what.

user talk:Phoenix500 18:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now completed up to the 2190s, alll years 2120-2199 have been redirected to their proper decade, I understand your concern about redoing the template to aquire remaining decades, if you can contact someone to do just that, the rest of the work will already be done for them, you just give mt the heads up when I can start going back in time before the 1690s BC, at my user talk page Phoenix500 - 19:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

James Eric Davidson

Hi there. You nominated this article for deletion back in 2008. The discussion ended in 'no consensus', but I agree with you that the subject is non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eric Davidson (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 62 (number). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley Hudson (talk • contribs) 14:36, April 27, 2011

I wasn't going to bring this up, but you are removing information against current consensus established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, and are one revert ahead of me. WP:BRD suggests that you should have stopped editing until a consensus for your point of view was established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the section for trivia and when after a week no attention was paid I removed the trivia. You reverted it without discussion. I reverted and opened a discussion. You reverted again and then pulled the fig leaf of BRD over yourself as if I hadn't already tried to initiate a discussion. You're the one who continued to blindly edit after a discussion was opened with no attempt to reach a consensus. No three of my reversions are within 24 hours. The initial removal was 4/25 00:05, first reversion was 4/25 20:30 (followed immediately by opening a discussion), second reversion was 4/26 18:29 (including a note that I had opened the discussion, which you had previously ignored), third reversion was 4/27 14:33. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Injunction anchor

Hi, could you please explain to me what the anchor you added to this article does and why you put it in? I read the template page, but, unfortunately, I don't get it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

{{anchor|UK super-injunctions|UK superinjunction|UK super-injunction}} allows Injunction#UK super-injunctions, Injunction#UK superinjunction, and Injunction#UK super-injunction to link to the same place as Injunction#UK superinjunctions. As there were already some redirects pointing to the hyphenated form, I thought it better to add the anchor than to modify the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

CRU debacle.

Please reference your claims and assertions on the talk page when you make them. Your signal to noise level has been rather low, you simply make to many recollection errors, and statements that contradict the basic facts of the case. Do please check first if your recollections are correct - instead of blindly opposing V's comments, which is the impression that is left when your assertions turn out to be incorrect. I too find his general agressive attitude problematic as well - but i can't fault him for not backing up his statements with reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or said in another way: It is rather hard to determine if V's attitude is a result of repeated faulty arguments, or if it is the reverse (where the faulty arg's would be intended as provocation). And that is a serious problem - right? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Armenian moving

THE ARTİCLES ARMENİAN MOVİNG AND ARMENİAN ROOTS WROTE ON REAL FACTS AND EVENTS.AND THIS TEXT IS FROM THE FAMOUS SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan from Karabakh (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

99.X needs to cut it out

Hey Arthur,

Back from a long break, and it looks like as usual, shenanigans are occurring. Any ideas on how to get 99.X to become a useful member of the community? I would start by saying that they need to:

• read WP:RS
• stop making demands
• stop sockpuppetry

I think we collectively have no time for this brand of distraction, and either 99.X shapes up, or we need to find a way to get him/her to stop wasting everyone's time.

Anyway, I won't be on all that often, but at least you know that someone whose viewpoint on the issue at hand lies opposite yours is irritated as well, and hopes that it is possible solve the distraction without too much effort.

(Aside: to this, you are, in fact, a mathematician, which is quite different... though honestly I often wish I knew more applied math for numerical solutions.)

Awickert (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

Hey Arthur,

Please, you stated here [5] that " all references which claim mathematical value are by B, and note that it doesn't have mathematical value". I think I am missing something! About value, I am not an expert, but are you sure about the references who are by B. (you mean a single fellow, I guess) ?? did you verify the 29 references I collected here[6], and which were the most numerous for the pages I investigated  ?? Thank you for correcting any mistake I could have done on this item.Rirunmot (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)