User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot 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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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!

Something

Hello there, dear sir. I would like to inform you that there is no need to have removed my edit to the year 1993. The edit that I made to this page is a relevant edit. If you were to have read the page, you would have known that the actress who I edited onto the page was born in 1993, so technically it is relevant information. If you see this, please take note. Thank you, The Editor.

P.S. My account is both more than 4 days old and I have made more than 10 edits, so there is no real need to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impishfont (talk • contribs) 23:11, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Edit in December 2019 Wiki Page

Hi, I'm Dantheanimator (or Dan, your choice). I received your message regarding my edit on the 2019 Wiki page. I don't understand my mistake or how the event I added was/is unimportant. Sorry for any inconveniences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheanimator (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Dantheanimator, I didn't mean to say you didn't have good intentions. I just don't the entry is one of the most important events of the year. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I can partially see why my event might be considered insignificant. I'll leave it off. Thank you for alerting me of this issue. I am very sorry for any inconveniences and mistakes I have made. By the way, your forgot to put the word "think" after don't.Dantheanimator (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

2020 about the 21 June 2020 annular eclipse undo

Hi there.

I noticed on the 2020 page that there was a 14 December 2020 eclipse, so I thought, Oh, someone forgot to add the annular eclipse. I must add this if the 14 December 2020 eclipse was already added. So I added it, and when you went to remove it, you did not take notice of the 14 December 2020 one. Is this supposed to happen, or is it just my wondering why solar eclipses are not added to these years? 69.246.122.149 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I was harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.122.149 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just wondered if you could have a gander at Timeline of the 21st century#2019

I may have overdone it a bit and was wondering if anything could or should be trimmed. :) Thanks Serendi^podous 03:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

It's here. In it, it says: "Decades, however, are commonly categorized based on the year numbers. For example, we say “the eighties” instead of “the 199th decade.” Similarly, the upcoming decade is technically the 203rd decade, but we call it “the twenties.” According to this common definition, decades generally encompass the time span from years ending with 0 to years ending with 9, such as 2020 – 2029.". What do you think? Should we add this? WildEric19 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WildEric19, I have no idea whether timeanddate.com is a WP:RS. More research is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Decade: ordinal vs. cardinal

I think it would be good to leave the mention of the ordinal decade that you removed from the 2020s article. The Decade article explains the ordinal usage and could be the reference. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lsloan, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The general rule we've established on List of stories set in a future now past is that if a date is not specifically stated, it should be assumed to occur on any date within the year

Yes there are a few that are specifically dated, but they are few and far between. Serendi^podous 01:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Serendipodous, Well, some of the movies / books / games represent a time-span exceeding 4 days, so they couldn't be entirely done yet. The original Blade Runner was clearly set in October 2019, so it stayed in 21st century in fiction until October or November. Furthermore, we still have the 20XX listings, which, under that argument, should already be removed to list of stories set in a future now past. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well there needs to be some kind of rule to prevent willy nilly additions. Are you saying that, in future, we should wait until the end of the year? Serendi^podous 20:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Serendipodous, My understanding, back when fictions were listed in individual year articles, that a year n object (film, TV program, manga, stained glass window, tatoo, ...) set in year n or year n+1 would not be included as "in fiction" in the year it was set, but others were listed. Perhaps we do need to wait till the end of the year, but I have no objection to double-listing in "in fiction" and "in a future now past" during the period when we cannot tell, with proper invisible comments.

I've only been actively monitoring 21st century in fiction for a few months now, when certain IPs have been adding future sports results to the article, so I don't know what happened at the end of 2019. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I'm fine with double listing for now. Serendi^podous 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 new decade

Hey Mate,

I wondered why you are adamant that the New decade issue should be removed. Is it that you don't find it relevant to the 2020 page, or that the sources need to be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.28.200 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's because there is no credible issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Administrator changes

Dreamy Jazz • Newslinger • Rosguill

Deor • Spartaz • Xeno

Angusmclellan • clpo13 • Edgar181 • Matthewedwards • NCurse

CheckUser changes

Bradv • Casliber • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Oversight changes

Bradv • Casliber • DGG • David Fuchs • Maxim • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy • Xeno

Someguy1221

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Importance tags

What are the requirements of notability to be on the 1991 year page. I believe that these are pretty notable people. just because their pages aren't to the best of conditions doesn't mean it's not a notable person. I could personally improve their pages. these importance tags are just labeling them to be removed. what about Hailu Yimenu's page? the page has barely any citation and no biography on the person but you still include them on the death list. you are sending mixed signals. From SomeBodyAnyBody05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk • contribs) 08:23, January 8, 2020 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05, We (Wikipedians) are still trying to keep year pages to be of manageable, although we're obviously failing with 2020, as we already have at least one event for each day of the year (except possibly today). We used to have acting guidelines, but they were only established by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, and were never ratified by the community.
The only remaining guideline is that the person (not just his death, for death listings) must be internationally significant. Leaders of a country's government or legislature are considered significant unless they didn't actually do anything. (An example of the latter is an acting president of a country whose only official action was to turn power over to his elected successor.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Also how was my first edit inappropriate? I responded with my opinion on the other user's comments? in a discussion page i express personal views and opinion and my "opinion" wasn't that big of a opinion as I state that celebrities should have pages no matter what they did in their personal life. you should have given a warning to the discussion starter. I mean no harm or vandalism . From SomeBodyAnyBody05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: Your opinion that all celebrities should have articles is clearly contrary to our guidelines, and your first edit was inappropriate because it attacked the previous editor, rather than his/her edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

2020s Edits

Hey Arthur

Thanks for the message that you left on my talk page. As I'm new here, I'm not fully aware of the exact guidelines of Wikipedia. However, you mentioned that I had added personal and opinionated material. May I ask which sections of my edit that this was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMonkey2006 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's true since wikipedia is a enclyopedia and should include almost all celebrities no matter what they are notable of. And I didn't attack anybody If you actually read what I said I was backing up your precious guidelines as wikipedia should be of fact. The original discussion attacks the wikipedia page as a whole. And also you Immediately removing The Lynn Hauldren entry is also insufficient as lynn hauldren was actually very notable as the running mascot for the empire company. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Hauldren is clearly not notable. I question whether he even meets Wikipedia notability standards, as it appears he is known only for the Empire Today ads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Well he is technically a celebrity as his likeness is still being used after his death. You can't say he is not notable of having a page when you have one even though if I go into the generalpublic of the city I inhabit and ask them who Arthur Rubin is and no shocker they wouldn't know. PS I posted my reply on the wrong discussion page. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would propose moving his article to Empire Man, per WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll notice the Empire Man section is longer than the rest of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of expansion of Universe in "Timeline of the far future" article

It's not completely clear why, but after some 9 months all of the material I added regarding the expansion of the Universe was removed from the above article.

There is a relevant section on the talk page. Perhaps some additional comment as to the rationale could be made there? (It seems the discussion of the Universe being vacuum at 10^106 years was not arbitrary as that was the point at which all Black Holes will have evaporated. The specifics provided were mathematically computed from conservative published future values of the Hubble parameter. I can see how some might debate the earlier entries, but I don't really understand why the last one doesn't pass muster).