Jump to content

User talk:Arthur Rubin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2020) (bot
Line 135: Line 135:
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)</small>}}
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Amorymeltzer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=937629575 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Amorymeltzer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=937629575 -->

== Why did you undo my edit? ==

Hey,

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia so still trying to understand why my edit on the 2020s page about ongoing major protests in India was changed in your revision, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020s&type=revision&diff=938879663&oldid=938757655

Was there a reason for that, or something that I don't know? Thank you!

Revision as of 01:42, 3 February 2020

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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 (talkcontribs) 23:11, November 25, 2019 (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 (talkcontribs) 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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would propose moving his article to Empire Man, per WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice the Empire Man section is longer than the rest of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsbaker0 (talkcontribs) 12:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE appeal result

Your appeal request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard has been closed. The result of the appeal is that your topic ban from the subject of gun control is converted to a 1RR restriction for any edits in the gun control area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2079

Thank you for the constructive feedback regarding my recent edits to the 2020 page. I have taken appropriate actions in accordance with your advice. User:216.230.42.71 Talk to me 04:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on 2090s

I have no idea why you'd do this because the scheduled events I listed, were in fact, True. There is factual proof that the government has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBeanFanatic2 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous



Why did you undo my edit?

Hey,

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia so still trying to understand why my edit on the 2020s page about ongoing major protests in India was changed in your revision, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020s&type=revision&diff=938879663&oldid=938757655

Was there a reason for that, or something that I don't know? Thank you!