This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Status
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.
Reverts such as to Palomar Observatory
Please stop reverting helpful additions. Please step back and consider whether you are reverting these changes for the benefit of Wikipedia, or to win an arguement. I have tried to make articles more relevant to a global readership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.126 (talk • contribs) 16:17, January 6, 2008
Well, formally speaking MOSNUM indeed applies to numbers, but I think it is natural to use the same principle for other objects as well unless there is a compelling reason against it. What you say about italics is true though. -- EJ (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy page
I think the discussion should continue on the homeopathy page. I thought of copying your comments to the homeopathy page. What do you think? Anthon01 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's used, but my interpretation of the (see also) section of article A for topics used in subject A, rather than subjects which use subject A, or articles which someone studing subject A would be interested in. This relationship is solely in the reverse direction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies. If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
I'd like to give you this barnstar because you didn't call me an idiot, even though I deserved it. I messed up on that school bullying article... quite a brain fart. I'm new to the issue of moving pages and I messed up. Thank you for dealing with it factually instead of pointing out that it was stupid.
Date preferences
Try playing around with your preferences again - if a person has their preferences set to day-month-year, the software gets rid of the comma automatically. If they are set to month-day-year, the comma is visible. I just checked this on my user page. Natalie (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The specific example is [[25 January]] [[2008]], which shouldn't have a comma if date preferences are off. I agree that, if date preferences are on, the software takes care of it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all accounts have date preferences, and they are all automatically set to D-M-Y, as are the IP settings. That, of course, might have changed. But it really doesn't matter how it looks in the edit window, because the software will take care of it no matter what. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in context, I don't think I would have used uw-vand2, but uw-test2. There's a difference between clearly irrelevant or inappropriate comments on a talk page and vandalism. Sorry about the reference to huggle templates. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)20:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the list of pranks seems to have two sources which have lists of pranks, so it's more difficult to AfD. I have no objection to attempting to AfD the article, but the sources may be real. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in email contact with Dgutson (talk·contribs) regarding his edits to regular number, which seem to be original research. It was looking likely that he would revert them himself after I showed him the relevant policies, but his plan was to wait a little longer and think a little more before doing so. So, while I think your revert is correct, I think he is a good faith editor who with some care can be coaxed into making more helpful edits to WP. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that. I find it difficult to edit, as I believe the evidence clearly shows that homeopathy doesn't work, but that that fact is disputed. You seem to be approaching differently; in that you seem to believe that the evidence clearly shows that it does work, but you agree that that is disputed. And then we have SA on one side and a few others on the other side who don't want the POV they don't hold in the article at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One caveat to your statement. Semmelweiss was considered wrong until science caught up. I have practiced Alt-med for 22 years and have seen over 4,000 patients; many of my clinical observations in the 1980s have been confirmed as nutrition science has evolved in particular the work done at the Harvard Public school of health by Walter Willett. I don't know what the future will bring for homeopathy, but my limited experience has surprised me, and the effects both positive and negative go far beyond 30%. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your comment. You may have missed it. Homeopathy is an article about a minority topic. Please point me to policy that says mainstream science should get most of the room in the article? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we are on the same page. WP:WEIGHT says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. On such pages, a view may be explicated in great detail, even though it must make sufficient reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not mis-represent the majority viewpoint. Doesn't homeopathy fall under this description of minority? Anthon01 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit paranoid after the other night but really I am not wanting to remove my talk history, I'll try and fix the archive and link to it on my talk page. My only real wish has been to have my user page history removed as i identified who and where I am on countless occasions. Sure I have elsewhere on wikipedia butt hat is not big deal, my only concern is that I should have the same right other users do to edit anonymously, by which I mean have no identifying info on my user page or in its history. I have been staying away from AN/I, I hope this message is clear and thanks for a prompt response. Thanks, SqueakBox20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may be an WP:OVERSIGHT question, as admins can (probably) see the deleted edits with your identity (I haven't checked, which is why I said "probably"), I agree your user page is your own to delete (unless, possibly, you were banned), so that's a reasonable resolution. Sorry about blocking you, but the AN/I comments were just too weird to let go without some action. Suggesting banning User:El C was another option, which I'd rather not take, at this time.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk)20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was your reason for blocking SqueakBox? and what was the block reason all about? I'm sorry, but no undeleting there talk page (without access to the tools to do it) seems completely innapropriate given it is now in his block log for life. The block was completely punative. Ryan Postlethwaite21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The block was about his (and some Admins') mangling of his talk page history, violating GFDL. However, it appears that his talk archive was never actually deleted, just the intermediate moves. I do feel the renaming A>B>C>D, and requesting deletion of B and C, really is a violation requiring some action, even if D is still intact, and they are all within his user talk space. He has an extensive block history, so I don't see that my block really detracts from his reputation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I never asked for my talk history to be deleted. Not sure about blocking El C, he remains one of the most highly respected admins, IMHO. Anyway, its all sorted now, take care, and good luck with your Spanish. Thanks, SqueakBox21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2008
hi Arthur,
I [see] that you have deleted the reference to World Vegan Day, as non-notable.
It was in the wrong section (#Events, rather than #Holidays), and it's still minor, as holidays/annual commemerations go. The first one might be properly listed (in 1994). — Arthur Rubin | (talk)08:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arthur. You should probably know better than me, but I fail to see why the video does not violate copyright. The copyright surely belongs to Pro7. Or is there some rule about the length of the excerpt?
What is also interesting to note is that the user name of the person that made that edit is the same as the user name that uploaded the video to YouTube! Surely his nicely done home-made translation subtitles do not free him from the copyright of the underlying video picture. Regards TINYMARK23:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I spoke too soon. As you may assume, I was not logged in when I did that edit. The link I intended to delete was the YouTube video not the Randi video. But I notice you seem to have also undone the reorg. Personally, I think an introduction of more than two sentences is a sign of a badly structured article, and anything after the first paragraph in this article could be placed in other sections. TINYMARK23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Homeopathy
Hi,
I don't want to get into that stress filled article, but it is interesting reading. I saw your comment and the wording "small to immeasurable infinitesimal quantities" occurred to me. Ward20 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beth number
You reverted the addition of an odd bit of trivia on the Beth number article earlier. I left the material out, but added a note on the talk page (Talk:Beth number#Counterfactuals) as it appears that, bizarre as the material was, it may be legit. Of course it may still be unsuited for the article. I just thought it was worth mentioning.
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
consideration of whether User:Snowfire51 and User:Hereward77 were acting in concert, thereby violating 3RR first. Obviously, I can't bring it up while blocked, and it would clearly be stale when my block expires. (Furthermore, only 3 of the 5 edits are reverts, but I should have started providing reasoning after the first revert, so the edit warring is still improper.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
FWIW, User:Hereward77 lied about my sock. While I was blocked last time, I asked whether I could create the notes that the other account was mine, and I received the word "no", and a sockpuppet warning was placed on my other account. I haven't replaced it with a clean acknowledgment of the identity of accounts yet, and won't do it while blocked.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk)08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Jones (radio)
I'd like to apologize. Things got a bit heated earlier on the Alex Jones (radio) article earlier today, and things kind of escalated in a way I don't think either of us wanted to happen. For what it's worth, I'm not a meatpuppet or sock, and I actually agree with you that he should be listed as a conspiracy theorist, we just differ on how wikipedia should go about it.
I hope there are no hard feelings over this, one look at either of our contributions will show that we both have a history of improving wikipedia. However, I also know you don't have to accept my apologies, and you're well within your rights to tell me to go climb a tree or something else more profane and descriptive. Either way, I just wanted to try and make an effort to clear things up. Sorry again for the way things turned out. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I see the problem. I still don't think that's a reliable source about Jones; in fact, I'm beginning to wonder if there are any reliable sources about him at all. Almost all the references we have are to his web sites or archives of his shows (and I'm not sure whether they're his archives, or an independent archivist, but they don't appear to be even as reliable as the network his show appears on.) I'd appreciate it if you'd retag the source as unreliable; but, even if it were reliable, it doesn't preclude conspiracy theorist appearing in the "known for" field, and it does not support "documentary filmmaker", although it does support some of the other "known for" (which should have been in "occupation").
Alex Jones; 23:39, February 9, 2008 PST (and previous) (AP is a reliable source, but background information about people other than the subject of the article is marginal; Willie Nelson is the subject) Further discussion on talk page.
It is not appropriate to use the block tool while blocked. As a technical matter, the tool is available (if it weren't, then a compromised account could block everyone and there would be nothing that could be done) but it is inappropriate to use it for ordinary purposes. --B (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 days for 3rr?
That seems pretty draconian. And to think that nearly two years ago I got pummeled for blocking a notorious edit warrior and sock puppeteer for 17 hours!--CSTAR (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that you were just removing information. If the information you were removing was wrong, that's different. There's a lot of vandalism on 21st century, as it's both {{current}} and potentially huge. Please feel free to correct it, provided you note the problem in the edit summary field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abusing the truth
Hi Arthur,
I am tired of User:Abuse truth. I asked not to revert but to discuss in talk:Indictment: The McMartin Trial and he reverted nonetheless and merely posted the same nonsense in that talk he had posted in a previous edit summary.
I will leave an identical note to Richard A. Norton. What can be done with this behavior? I mean it. How is it possible that as to date the WP community has been unable to ban this blatant pov pushing of the most grotesque conspiracy theories with no disciplinary action whatsoever?
Perhaps a user conduct WP:RfC? I don't hold hope that anything would come of it, othet than all but 1 editor believes his edits are uniformly in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (although 2 respected editors think they sometimes provide a grain of evidence which can be fixed up later), and even that editor believes that his failure to discuss before his 3rd addition of censored material is not helpful, but a worthless RfC seems necessary for an WP:RfAr. However, please read the guidelines for RfC carefully. A failed RfC (certification not met) would tend to credit his actions. My actions haven't been beyond reproach, but I still think his clear misstatement of the content of online sources (I have no idea whether he's misstated the content of sources I haven't read), addition of sources relevant only to a related topic, and addition of sources of questionable reliability and bias and removal of clearly reliable (although biased) sources, and failure to discuss such changes until his third attempt to change the article, strikes me as grounds for discussion. I suppose addition of material related to the accuracy of a documentary might be allowable, but it hasn't been allowed in Loose Change. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband(talk)09:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I didn't say that. If no reliable source calls it X, then we can't call it X, as that would be WP:ORin the name. If the primary name used by reliable sources is pejorative (about which, by the way, I disagree in this case), we may use what some secondary reliable sources call it, instead. I'm not sure what we do if all sources call something by a pejorative name. I suppose we'd have to use it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
about the double-standard way of describing people in calendar pages
we dont list what they are famous for ? then why it is done for politicians and guitarists? it is listed what was the post of a politician which is clearly what he/she is famous for and it is also listed which music bands a guitarist were a member of. not mentioning what people are famous for in this case just shows a double-standard in doing calendar pages. I do not revert them unless you give me reasons. I dont know why we must descriminate in favour of politicians and Guitarists. if this man is the 16th president of united states, that man is also the 1st man who observed red blood cells. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so there is a double-standard in favour of those 4 groups of people. bad for scientists and filmmakers :D . okey, I act according to current convention. but as you may know it is not the current convention of for example "today in history" websites. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no ! :D give artists a chance. musicians are the only artists among them. + you forgot to mention athletes. important medals are listed for them. anyway, I took a look at all archives of the page you mentioned, i mean the wikiproject Days of the year Talk page. I had read the article page of it yesterday. if the goal is to keep Wikicalendar pages most clean and tidy and well-shaped then it is better to follow the current convention you mentioned. thats a trade-off between fast access to the main datas and having a clean page.Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
