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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Thanks for the reminder

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Jobin RV's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks...

...for this! The bad dream is finally over :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2012; 20:27 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Riley Huntley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dispute Resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Political activities of the Koch family, Koch family". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 04:19, June 16, 2012‎

ICD

Wikipedia Campaign by SkaraB and Media Hound aginst the ICD Continues

the meantime and as you can see, SkaraB/Mediahound is celebrating its “VICTORY” to harm the ICD and continuing with the campaign to harm the ICD in every possible way. Now “they” are going through the ICD Advisory Board members list and deleting references to the ICD. For example, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, the Vice President of the ICD got “a visit” from them and they deleted any reference to the ICD, ignoring the fact that in her own website the Vice President mentions her role on the icd and of course it is also mentioned in the ICD website:

See here (scroll down to the very bottom): http://ehennicotschoepges.lu/cv/ See here wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erna_Hennicot-Schoepges&action=history

The anonymous editor is continuing like that with all of the pages of ICD members and will probably continue on the hunt against the ICD any way possible. This is of course not good for the Wikipedia and administrators and high level management of Wikipedia must be involved in this as this can have consequences for Wikipedia. I will now continue to observe and watch the activity of SkaraB and Media Hound and document all of their activities. At the same time, I will deliver the findings to Wikipedia authorities in order to stop this activity, as it has been going on for years already.

I will appreciate your advice here. --Hessin fahem (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If a real third party commented on board membership, it might be allowable. I'm afraid I agree that you haven't pointed to a source other than ICD and its board members that it is notable. I probably wouldn't have removed it, as it may be of significance to the board members that they are on the board, but we'd need another source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I too tend to agree that perhaps her article should in fact mention her involvement with the ICD. According to the ICD website she is vice chairman of the board; and her own webpage links to the ICD. The paragraph that I deleted was a bit misleading, though, since it merely said that she was a member of the advisory board. That board has a large number of members, ranging from former prime ministers to the lead singer of Boney M; seeing that we have not been able to establish that the ICD is a notable organization I think that ordinary membership of the advisory board is not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article, at least not without any clear evidence that this is a post that, in Arthur Rubin's words, is of any significance to the members in question.

SkaraB 10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you mention Boney M, please see Once upon a time in Russia . JRSpriggs (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing! I'm so glad I stopped by this talk page. :) —mako๛ 16:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A source you might like

Arthur, I've noticed youre interested in Finance, in particular in the work of Shiller such as his book Animal Sprits. I think you might enjoy his new book Finance and the Good Society. The first half is far and away the best overview of the Finance sector I've seen. The second half has proposals for reform, many of which seem surprisingly compatible with Libertarian thinking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My fav. Arthur Rubin quote

From the NWO (conspiracy theory) archives (usernames trimmed to avoid stirring any trouble):

As a not particularly involved editor, I would like to note that B has not been following NPOV in any of his suggested edits. I haven't checked J's contributions for nonsense, yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, how is law school going? John Shandy` • talk 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

RS/N

I went to RS/N for reasoning on using the Mondale op-ed for "facts" <g>. TFD, of course, posits that anything Mondale writes should be a "fact" if Mondale asserts it (well -- not his exact owrds). Problem is the source also assets the Koch's livein Florida - meaning there is an eensy chance the op-ed was not fact-checked <g>. Collect (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR at ALEC

Your recent editing history at American Legislative Exchange Council shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Noted. I still claim that two of my reverts were of WP:BLP, and I'm still making a minimal revert to preserve WP:BLP, in addition to adding a few tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. I wish you had not continued with your edit war after my warning. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps all of you could ask for page protection and hash it out on the article talkpage.MONGO 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds promising. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cardinal number

Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Edit_warring_in_Cardinal_number

--Gonzalcg (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You write:

Badly formatted; you are the one with the most reverts, and you failed to put any persons's name or sign the post. I think it will be ignored unless one of the people you are complaining about decides to format it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1) The main point is not my English, nor formating, etc., but the inaccuracies in the history section. Some warning should appear for preventing the reader. It is my main concern.

2) I sent the link for the Cantor's work online.

3) I have the very only historical article in bibliography. I can privately send it, but it is not free.

4) I simply forget to sign the edition. But I sent a link and it is clear that I cannot hidden my identity.

5) Is so bad the English?:

"This section has some inaccuracies that must be corrected"

Deiser affirms that Cantor did not provide a precise definition of the notion of cardinal number

affirms => writes, says, etc ???? It makes any differences?

Dieser writes:

"Cardinal numbers are among the most important concepts of set theory, but they

are not easy to define. Although Georg Cantor had built his set theory on ordinal and cardinal numbers, he did not provide a precise definition of these notions. The complexity of the problem was understood only much later."

I.e., I had inserted an almost textual citation. A very relevant citation because the section can lead to misunderstanding.

Please, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cardinal_number#Some_problems_of_the_section (Wow, this yields a paper! :-) )

Essentially, the problem is that a encyclopedic article should avoid all kind of misunderstandings because the reader is not an expert in the subject, but somebody which is beginning to learn the matter.

Apologize the bad English

Carlos --Gonzalcg (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point, although I don't see any evidence for your statement that Cantor only discussed infinite cardinalities. However, due to your unfortunate grasp of English and my insufficient grasp of early mathematical German, I can't determine what you or Cantor is actually saying. (I have read modern articles on set theory in German, but I know what the terms mean; trying to decipher both the language and the naive mathematics is difficult.)

Still, per Wikipedia guidelines, there shouldn't be warnings in the article. What you should do is place {{disputed-inline|section name of talk page where it is discussed}} following the disputed statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Now tagged appropriately. This should bring it to the attention of other Wikipedians, without adding "spoiler warnings". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, Cantor writes about finite sets and finite cardinal. But it is not true that: "Cantor first established cardinality as an instrument to compare finite sets". See the Galileo's paradox:

"equal," "greater," and "less," are not applicable to infinite, but only to finite, quantities.

The original editor of the section thinks that Cantor invented the one-to-one correspondence, also for finite sets. This is the problem. Dieser writes that: "Albert of Saxony, who explicitly states that two multitudes are equal in size if there is a one–one correspondence between them." (p. 125) It makes no sense try to catch a phantom.--Gonzalcg (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lagrange's Trigonometric Identities

I see you were quick to delete and re-delete the reference I added to Lagrange's trigonometric identities, claiming I have no expertise. If you had bothered to check, you would have found that I have four degrees in physics and mathematics, which plenty of "expertise" for this article. In any case, I'm tired of fighting with you antisocial Wikipedia nerds and your endless deletions. Delete whatever you want; I'm sure you can justify it by citing WP:XYZ or WP:ZZR or something. But maybe you should read this article: Are Deletionists Harming Wikipedia?. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. I have more relevant degrees than you do, and my unpublished work is not suitable for Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaahh! I lie mortally wounded by the sheer force of your impeccable logic! </sarcasm> I'll let you get back to enforcing WP:MXR and WP:YPM and whatever else it is you do. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov Article

I see you've also deleted my contribution to the Isaac Asimov article. Congratulations -- you got even with me. I guess you got your revenge. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just deleted the reference to your page. The contribution, sourced to reliable sources, remains intact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for taking the trouble to do that. But let's not pretend that you stumbled on the Asimov article by accident. You got angry and searched Wikipedia for contributions I've made, hoping to find something you could delete so you could get even. Congratulations -- you found something, deleted it, and got even. Well played. You win. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I searched Wikipedia for references to your site, which you admit is copied from Wikipedia, so is a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why were you searching Wikipedia for references to my site? Because you wanted revenge. Well, you got it. And the Wikipedia articles on my site were written entirely by me; I put them there to preserve them after they'd been deleted. (Nice try with that copyright violation thing, though.) And again, congratulations on your successful effort to get even with me. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations check

Please check my citations sir, i am so desperate and tired that i may quit anytime now, please consider Arthur Rubin (talk) - Ballisticizer (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment welcome

I played with some of your data. Please stop by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of My User Page

Arthur Rubin: I just noticed how you vandalized my User page. Pretty low class. I hope you feel good about yourself. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN applies. --S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

S. Rich: OK, thanks. SimpsonDG (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion on Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that Arthur Rubin made the necessary and proper apology on the ANI page. Now that the matter is closed, both editors can (should and will) move on.--S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I expect this to be the end of this matter. SimpsonDG (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Years

You said that Millennia start with years ending in 1 and end with years ending in 0. If so, why was the new millennia celebrated on 1st January, 2000, not 2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteWolf55555 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

People will find any excuse to celebrate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no real event whose anniversary was being celebrated. So it was just a celebration of the digits rolling over like the way you may notice that your car has another 100,000 miles on its odometer when it goes from 199,999.9 to 200,000.0 . Most people accept common superstition rather than the official definitions used by the elite. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding possible socks of XB70Valyrie

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Political activities of the Koch family. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, 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 the 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): ^ WP:DTTR. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 14:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff is probably a sockpuppet of User:Mbhiii, User:Welhaven, User:Attleboro and others. This is just what he does when he you disagree with him. 108.123.23.219 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he's a sock of any of those. Maybe someone else. In any case, it was deserved, this time, as we've each reverted 3 times in rapid succession. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine

I reverted all the edits by Stepbed1 aka User:JarlaxleArtemis because he is a banned editor. Feel free to restore any of your own changes. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He's JarlaxleArtemis? Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If the content is objectionable, shouldn't you revdel the text of my revisions, as well? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The revdel is because JA's modus operandi is to get his disruptive views into the page history. He doesn't care if they're reverted. He can't get the idea into his head that he, personally (as opposed to his political views) is not welcome here. But once I revdel his contributions, your revisions just show as restoring the page from a blank, so I don't think I need to revdel yours. Cheers, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

IP Socks

Hello Arthur, I just noticed you've been knocking heads with a nutcase on at least a couple of articles over the cause of the Colorado Wildfires. I saw something interesting that I'm not quite sure what to do with, since I'm a less-experienced editor. Check out these DNS resolutions for 4 of the IP addresses:

adsl-108-195-138-75.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-142-236.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-139-218.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

adsl-99-181-146-181.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net

In case it isn't obvious enough just due to these IPs repeatedly inserting the same global warming nonsense, I think these addresses pretty much make it a slam dunk that you're dealing with a sock. Unfortunately, it appears that you have to be an admin to initiate an SPI for an IP user, so I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Belchfire (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not call that a sockpuppet. It just appears the person's IP is rotating and changing periodically. 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Arthur, if you were offended by my post I apologize. I have only the greatest respect for your contributions. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

vandalism?

Hello Arthur, in good spirits I hope. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your libalous usage of the terms vandalism to describe the recent edit to pharmakeia. You should not charectorize honest efforts at improving an article as vandalism as you have. Hope you have a good day. 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur. I have noticed that you have also charectorized the edit to Petrochemical. As odd as it may seem to you propylene glycol is indeed used as an ingrediant in Louis Trauth brand lemon aid served to inmates in the monthomery county jail in Dayton Ohio USA. Truth is stranger then fiction. Before labeling factual edits vandelism you should educate yourself on the subject first. http://www.trauthdairy.com/ 2602:306:C518:62C0:F4B0:8B17:484D:B943 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)