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 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

moloch

My Edit

Also in 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson infiltrated the Bohemian Grove and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, a mock human sacrifice in front of a 40' stone owl, which has been identified as moloch.

Your Revert

Also in 2000, Jones and assistant Mike Hanson infiltrated the Bohemian Grove and filmed the opening weekend ceremony, known as the Cremation of Care, a mock human sacrifice in front of a 40' stone owl, which he believes has pagan origins.

Comment

I think you might of acted in haste Authur. The difference is that my version increases the information without increasing the word count significantly. As to moloch being capitalised, that is probably correct and is the only part of the revision that infers a minor degree of disrespect, and can of course be changed as a minor edit.

As to your comment "we need a cite", is that not a mistake ? Are there not common sense limits on citiation, so that I would not have to prove by citation that a statue of the virign mary or mars the god of war ?

I see form your biography page that you have a jewish heritage, I dare to comment further as might say something rude. So I will await your reply in good faith.

Evadinggrid (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to specify who has identified (the owl) with Moloch (or actually, looking at our article, perhaps a lower-case definition was intended). For what it's worth, from my comparative mythology course, I don't recall Moloch being an owl, nor is there any indication of it in our article.

And, under the circumstances, yes, a cite is needed. I remember (from the old Testament) that Moloch is a bull.

It should be pointed out that, as a Jew, I am not allowed to worship other gods (the commandment is usually translated as "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"), but I'm allowed to speculate as to their existence and modes of worship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well to be brutaly frank, these occult types think nothing of mixing fact with fiction. The biblical accounts focus quiet correctly on the evil acts. They saw people who practiced different primative religions as having similarities and would interchange labels.

A modern example would be lucifer and satan worshipers would be described as one religon of devil worshipers. They would recieve howls of protests from the actual paractioners and adherents who dont recognise the term devil, and see themselves as distinct groups. They would not even acknowledge the term Devil as anything more than jewish christain ignorance.

The act itself, defines behond despute exactly what the bulk of the practioners belive they are worshipping. However, why is it a statue of an Owl, and not that of a man with a bull's head you might ask. Well they base there 'esoteric reasoning' on modern occultisim (steal, lie and plaugerise). They identifiy the Owl as Lillith, by King James Bible 'translation' from the night demon of jewish folk tales. Of course, what you have here is an example of that age old phrase "at each level it is a different lie". Should you bother to follow the trail you will actualy find Maths, Astronomy and Time. But, that would be to place poison in a brain better employed doing real math.

My suggestion is that it is phrased in a neutral tone. It is not really Jones that identifies the owl as moloch, but the occultists. From a personal perspective your ancestors had the right idea, which just goes to show that genocide is not always a bad thing and the exception proves the rule. I would not want to place links or give any oxygen of publicity to Thelmic thinking or encourage anyone to read any grimoires like Waite's which could be used for citations. I'd suggest that if a reader really wants to know, they can start at the wikipedia entry for Moloch and find there own version of the truth.

My english skills are not that great, perhaps you can take the above and make an appropiate edit.

PS Incidentaly I hope you have spread your finances and understand fractional reserve banking. Evadinggrid (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur ?

Evadinggrid (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jones identified on air today the sacrifice action is molech and the owl is lillith . Evadinggrid (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro se talk

[1] Yes, I understand and genuinely appreciate your frustration. Would you consider refactoring this, though? It's just a bit too personal, I think. I'll be working on this particular project in about 3 hours. Your work, as well as that of Non Curat Lex and now Famspear, has made a big difference, and I appreciate your patience through the upheaval. Risker (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. It's not helpful, except in an RfC against Kay, and maybe not even then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's technically "not right" per various WP guidelines (Risker is definitely right) but I'll be darned if it 'aint the truth. (I hope that the initial posting of the since-overwritten remarks was de-stressing and emotionally satisfying for you as the writer; it was certainly de-estressing and emotionally satisfying for me as the reader, although maybe not to th same extent). Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Kay fixes a typo here or there but when she makes sweeping changes to the article, I have to put my foot down. I think her edits today needed to to be reverted, but I don't want to go charging off it doesn't reflect the conensus. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're fine. I wasn't going to revert all Kay's edits, but if you feel there's anything wrong with an edit or edit set, I have no problem with your reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my present concern: she effectively reverted my second-to-last revert. Since her gfes are disruptive, but not patent vandalism, it is not my place to police it alone; I'll be 3RRed pretty quickly *if* she keeps it up. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for a user RfC. We had an article RfC which seems to have gone against Kay, which she is ignoring, for the most part. I really don't think we could get an article ban without getting specific discussion, even though there's been a fair amount in (now archived) threads in the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct. I have never participated in a user RfC befre. Let me go read about it, and then I'll try to get started (or, if you beat me to it, I'll jump in). Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created the user rfc here.

I think the most value in the User RfC is to generate "history" - it doesn't seem likely that it will prompt change on Kay's part, since she's received enough advice and criticism that ignoring an RfC won't take much of a leap. Even with my limited role I find the whole thing a little exhausting to keep up with, and getting behind makes it harder to chime in or help in a substantial way. Exhausting editors with huge volume edits may be an unintentional strategy on her part, but it does seem to be having its standard effect. Avruch ^T 18:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You just have to put the pants on one leg at a time It seems overwhelming from far away, but when you get down to it, it's manageable. In any case, I'm not sure a user rfc is appropriate; what we really need is topic ban for Kay Sieverding, and I don't think a User RfC has the authority to impose that kind of restriction. Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:Training (meteorology).
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

I would like to know why you aren't replying. -- IRP ☎ 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any logical support for your position. Do I need to repeat my opposition to your new proposed article without a defining difference from the existing one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete these references from the pro se page?

1.)Why did you delete these references?

"The U.S. Constitution extends the power of the U.S. Judiciary to: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.. However, some people think that the word "citizens" should not apply to pro se litigants in the court citation needed and a few years before the U.S. civil war, in Dred Scott v. Sandford the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of slavery under the same constitution by declaring that ex slaves could never be citizens even though they were extended full voting rights in five of the original states. "

2.)Why did you delete this summary of table?

" States that explicitly recognize a right to self-representation (without an attorney) in their constitution or statutes include Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Utah and the District of Columbia. States that use the words “every person” or “every subject” include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States that use the words “every man” include Delaware, Maryland, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. " (summarizes table)

3.) Why did you delete this reference?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the rights of the self-represented litigant in Rule 17 "The court must appoint a guardian ad litem — or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action"

Do you not think that the words "incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action" applies to pro se litigants? If so why don't you just supply a reference as requested?

4.) Why did you remove the request for a reference from the statement "While this creates double standard, citation needed The Judicial Counsel justifies it based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referree... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."

5.) Why did you remove this reference:

"although the court's decision required processing of a 150 page hard to understand complaint written by an attorney in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co (which was cited by 40 circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in MONROE ET AL. v. PAPE ET AL., 81 S. Ct. 473, 365 U.S. 167)."

6.) Why did you remove this Supreme Court reference:

"The United States Supreme Court ruled "[n]o technical forms of pleading or motions are required,” and Rule 8(f) provides that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” Given the Federal Rules’ simplified standard for pleading, “[a] court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding. Moreover, claims lacking merit may be dealt with through summary judgment under Rule 56. The liberal notice pleading of Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim. "

7. Why did you remove this reference (posted by someone I don't know):

http://www.representyourselfincourt.org With a free e-book, links to online resources by state, and also motions, briefs, pleadings and other helpful documents available for you to view, download, and edit, this may be a very helpful resource.

This website touches on lawsuits, divorce and custody, criminal, civil, and estate issues, and may help those who can't afford an attorney and are forced to represent themselves in court.

8. Why did you remove these 13 references?

"The wording " which requires a judge to “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding . . . the right to be heard according to law.” is used in many state codes including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, , Nevada Wisconsin Pennyslvania, Virgina, Rhode Island, Washington State, West VirginiaUtah,

9. Why did you leave in: " Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure address the rights of the self-represented litigant in several places"? Where are the rights of self-represented litigants referred to in these rules? kay sieverding (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus that you should not edit the pro se page, except to correct obvious errors. As for specifics.

1. Is OR. You're adding a specifically unsourced comment that a court case and rulings are relevant to the article when they are not obviously so.
2. The second sentence is clearly irrelevant. The first might be relevant, but I don't see a real reason to include it.
3. May be relevant, but it requires some WP:SYN to get there.
4. Clearly irrelevant.
5. Clearly irrelevant.
6. Possibly marginally relevant, but it needs a source as to relevance.
7. Spam. No evidence of notability, no evidence of accuracy, little evidence of existence. (And it wasn't yours, was it?)
8. Clearly irrelevant, and removed specifically as such by at least 3 editors.
9. Finally, something which may be a problem. Not having a copy of the rules with me, I can't confirm it's in there. But 7+ out of 9 isn't bad.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

2000s Name Problem

Per your recommendation here, I was curious as to your thoughts on whether a merge would be more appropriate, or simply take the article to AfD. The PROD was removed with no explanation (surprise surprise) by the creator. GlassCobra 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's information in the Problem article which should be in 2000–2009, so a merge may be appropriate if the information wasn't taken from the original 2000s article. The question of the name of the Problem is separate; it probably should be 2000s name contraversy (but spelled correctly). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Decadebox

I think I've got it working correctly now. Let me know if you spot any errors or anything you think ought to be changed. Similarly with milenniumbox, centurybox and (shortly) year nav.--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Of interest

Check it out. rootology (C)(T) 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert contributions with properly referenced reliable sources as you did on Inflation.

Please do not revert contributions with properly referenced reliable sources as you did on Inflation.PennySeven (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You entered the same material 6 times. Pick one location and add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I think there is a slight misunderstanding here.

1. I put the main contribution back but in the wrong spot.

2. I simply changed the word reduce to erode. I change one word to what was agreed before. One word. I did not put the whole contribution a second time.

3. I think I put another part of the contribution back, but did not note that the closing ref code was not there.

4. Then I noted that the main contribution was in the wrong spot and I moved the main contribution to the right spot.

5. You seem to be right on this one. I seem to have double clicked and the same change went thru again. So it seems to me. Sorry.

6. One the one I added </ref> that was missing from a reference.

7. I put the Cost of living section back.

I am sorry, but these were honest attempts to put contributions that were previously agreed and accepted that I contributed and then took off in a fit when the editor Lawrencekhoo accused me of having some real life interest/gain from these posts.

How do you suggest I put them back. There are actually five different paragraphs in three sections.

What do you suggest?PennySeven (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are actually three locations:

On the first one after The Austrian school there are two paragraphs: about inflation and constant payments and another about inflation and historical cost non-monetary items.

Then at the bottom of the advantages from inflation sections there was a statement about inflation eroding the value of the government debt.

Then at the bottom of that section there was a sub-section about Cost of Living Allowances.

What do you suggest I do?PennySeven (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you actually said: add at most once. Ok, I will do that. Thank you.PennySeven (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I added it once, deleted a wrong reference and added one full stop??.

Sir, I respectfully added the contribution once, as you requested.

Then I deleted a wrong reference that was inadvertently included in the first once-off addition.

Then I noticed that a full stop was missing at the end of the statement. I added one full stop.

I did not add the full contribution three times.

PennySeven (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You added it twice. Again. I removed both, for consideration. "Eroded" should only be used once, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Reconsider what you said. You can list expected future events, including "digital television transition in the United States". -- IRP ☎ 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Only in year articles (2009), not date articles (February 17), per the respective project guidelines. There's no reason to have Feburary 17, 2009 (or 17 Feburary 2009) at all, as it's not that significant an event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can see what you mean, I actually agree with the delete now. -- IRP ☎ 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's already deleted. -- IRP ☎ 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Complex system

Hi, I just removed the links to Adam M.Gadomski and to Socio-cognitive systems for the second time in the complex system article. I though you would like to know this, as stated on your talk page. Maybe you can take a look. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

I agree with you that the votes are not important in themselves – only the arguments behind them. My point is that there if there is no (calm and reasoned) discussion there can be no consensus. If you look through the archives you will see that Greg_L’s tactics of ridicule - supported by Fnagaton and tolerated by Headbomb - have prevented such a discussion time and time again. For example, you may wish to take a look at events the last time I brought this up at WT:MOSNUM. My arguments were supported by approximately 5 editors and opposed by a similar number, but it was impossible to have a discussion about it because of Greg_L’s ridicule tactics towards those editors who disagree with him:

• This MOSNUM talk page has officially been declared a “no whining zone”,
• “I want my IEC prefixes! I want my IEC prefixes! We had them for three years and I want them baaaaack!. Well… tough and
• Well, Anomie, do you feel better now after that little fourth-graders’ rant? ,

while an editor who agrees with him is cheered on:

• Hallelujah, amen. Pass the collection plate and let’s get outa here.

The net result is to discourage meaningful discussion, giving a false impression of consensus. That is why I requested mediation, which Greg_L refused, presumably because it would cramp his style. The purpose of my note was simply to point out that without debate there can be no consensus.

By the way, in his response he and Fnagaton misrepresent my words time and time and again. For example, look at the way he takes your words and attributes them to me. He also selectively quotes the 7-3 vote for the present wording while conveniently omitting to mention that all three oppose votes were objecting to one very specific piece of text, but no attempt was made to take these objections into account. Whether he does so deliberately only he can tell, but I have no intention of engaging in debate with him without a mediator present, and I can assure you I am not alone in this view. And this is precisely the problem that is created by his tactics. They lead to the kind of consensus that a sergeant major achieves on a military parade ground, suppressing debate instead of encouraging it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2 stop misrepresenting the situation because as the talk archives prove you are not writing any accurate claims. The only poster who is misreprenting the facts is you. The only poster who is not making reasoned discussion is you because you keep on misrepresenting all of the other editors who have refuted your arguments. The link you gave where you claim five other posters support you does not show what you claim because actually the result on you posting your statements is that your statements are weaker than the already stronger arguments in the talk archive and also that what you posted was a copy paste of already refuted weak arguments. Basically what you posted was nothing new and certainly was not substantive, the talk archive demonstrates that. There can only be calm and reasoned discussion when you stop trying to misrepresent other editors, your talk pages are proof enough that you are misrepresenting other editors because you keep on trying to re-write history to suit your own ideas. For example you misrepresent a 3RR report against you for edit warring for which you were blocked and had the multiple unblock requests declined as "bullying" when actually you are at fault, the case even went for review and every admin found no problem with the block and the denial on your unblock. Also, reasoned discussion can only take place when you actually start making valid arguments because so far you have not done so. Every attempt was made by Headbomb to take into account valid objections to the vote you cite and as the talk archive shows you repreatedly refused to answer questions with any kind of valid reply. Since you and others failed to provide any kind of valid substantive argument then the no votes had little to no bearing on the consensus. This is because weak refuted statements, like yours, do not have to be included in consensus, no matter how many times you try to vote no your statements are still weak. Weak refuted points of view are not included in consensus for guidelines because guidelines need to be strong and not weakened by weak points of view. Mediation was refused because there is no need since your actions Thunderbird2 are at fault here. Thunderbird2 what you are doing is trying to use ad hominem, attacking other editors by misrepresenting them, instead of tackling the real arguments. So Thunderbird2, once again, stop right now trying to misrepresent other editors and try to start posting valid arguments. Your repeated attempts to misrepresent other editors is demonstrative of disruptive editing which is opposite to the aims of Wikipedia editing. Consider it a challenge Thunderbird2 that you stop writing about how you think other editors "are bad people" and instead you start only posting valid substantive arguments. Fnagaton 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Graph isomorphism

What's the reason for your last edit at Graph isomorphism, adding the non-RS tags, or was it a mistake? I don't think anybody has a problem with the paper by Zemlyachenko et al. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that was the wrong paper. I thought one of Tim32's had found its way back into the article. I'll revert, if you haven't already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Date page cleanup

Before I put in a bot request to unlink the years (death year under births section, etc.) in the date articles, would you review the conversation here so that isn't just me saying that it should be done. If you disagree, I'm fine with that, I just think it's the right way to go if no one objects. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

I don't think you've been notified, so I thought I'd let you know that there is a thread about you, and whether some of your recent edits to Talk:Graph isomorphism are racist, over Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I think it's a storm in a teacup and doesn't need any more input, but I also thought you should be made aware. All the best, Verbal chat 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said it, but it is true that Russian (and Soviet) journals seem not to have developed the tradition of intellectual honesty that (most) western European journals have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Year nav

Having got the protection level temporarily reduced, I've made my proposed changes to the template. Since it now handles all years (including BC), I've also edited {{Year nav BC}} and {{Year nav 1st century CE}} to use {{Year nav}} (so all year articles, once updated in the cache, are now effectively using Year nav). Let me know if you see anything amiss, so we can repair it before the admins fully proetct the template again.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to explain to me how the dr templates work (and I hope you have them protected). You gave me a little scare when in the year nav doc file, as the display didn't match the claimed usage, but it had <nowiki>{{year nav|100}}</nowiki> and {{year nav|101}}.... I don't see a problem with {{year nav}} if {{dr}} works as specified, although I'm not sure how "13" gets into it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to get dr and all the other subtemplates protected I suppose (or at least semi-protected, so we can still work on them - or are you an admin?) The "13" is a somewhat arbitrary parameter I added, based on the observation that single digit numbers look odd as years unless they have "AD" added, particularly if mixed with BC years. So in 12 AD and below (where single digits start appearing in the box), the years have the parameter "ysa" instead of "ys", which causes the addition of the AD (unless there's a BC already present, obviously).--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the templates, including appropriate names, at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Years, as Decades, Centuries, and Millennia were never created. (As an aside, has List of decades been updated for the decade names BC?)

Yes, I am an admin, (at least for the moment; there have been RfAr's proposed against me). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, have updated List of decades. I'll ask for the templates to be protected again, since as an admin you'll be able to edit them as necessary. In fact I'm thinking of applying for adminship myself, purely because I often find myself trying to maintain templates which get protected, but I'm not sure if that will be accepted as valid motivation.--Kotniski (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dewey Nicks

This article is categorically not a valid CSDA7 candidate and it is not seemly that you would backbite against the removal in a prod, especially when as an admin, you are really expected to understand and enforce at least the clearest mandates of the deletion policy. I actually misspoke when I removed the prod. Prod is for non-controversial deletion, and the deletion of this article on the basis of notability would not be that. CSD A7 requires only an assertion of importance. A person whose article claims he has been published in Vogue, Vanity Fair, Harper's Bazaar, W, and GQ, directed commercials for major companies like Tommy Hilfiger and Hugo Boss among others, and was the director of Slackers (a real commercial film released into major theatres and reviewed by Newsweek, the Village Voice, Ebert and Roeper, etc.) is so far from meeting A7 that there's really little to say other than that the assertion is obvious and axiomatic. I suspect that if taken to AfD this article would survive, solely on the basis of what's in the article now, much less what would be revealed after further research, which further shows how far afield from a valid A7 subject it is. That is not to say that the article would survive. Maybe, despite his directing chops, he has not received much coverage in reliable sources. But that is a valid subject of inquiry on the merits. Not for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Arthur, but I agree with Fuhghettaboutit. The article most definitely does not satisfy CSD A7. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe

I don't think I have reinserted the comments - I took out info about debt [2] (and before this weekend also on income [3]). I have no objection to the removal of his comments about Boston Tea Parties. I would also support removal of any comments he might have about the Price of tea in China - or as I better know the expression on the price of fish ;-) --Matilda ^talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal. The article had been edited so fast that 3 people should have been blocked for 3RR already, although only one was. Do I need to apologize further? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No - just wanted to clarify and I think we don't disagree entirely (double negative intended) Regards --Matilda ^talk 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled on Joe Wurzelbacher

Hello. Your edit on the Joe Wurzelbacher article has me puzzled. The edit summary states "remove per WP:UNDUE; the tax lien is clearly relevant to his views on taxes" but you actually deleted the "clearly relevant" section in question. Perhaps you meant to say irrelevant? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted his views on taxes, due to the claim made that the lien is a BLP violation. My assertion is that, if his statement on taxes appears, so should the lien, but I'm more neutral on whether the statement should appear at all. (I think I said that on the talk page, also.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:BLP/N#Joe_the_Plumber Inclusionist (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Division algebra reversion

Hi Arthur,

You just reverted an edit I did to improve the style and the content of the page cited in the headline. The linguistic style of the original was truly terrible, so those changes should not be an issue.

I realized I made a mistake of content of my own in my error correction, and was in the process of correcting it when I encountered an edit conflict with your reversion. I have now effectively reverted your reversion and corrected the mistake I made, as well as included a reference citing Wolfram's math world definition of a division algebra.

I once knew, long ago, an Arthur Rubin with exceptional math abilities. I see from your talk page you are probably not the same man. The Arthur I knew would see in a flash both the original page I edited was incorrect, as well as the incorrect aspect of my initial correction, but I see no evidence of extraordinary mathematical aptitude in your talk page.

It is my belief the introduction is now correct, although the remainder of the page is in dire need of style improvements. It is my hope you will leave the improvement, for that is the intent of the wikipedia, isn't it? i.e. gradual improvement through collective consensus.

In matters of math, there is such a thing as unambiguous right and wrong. Many of the wikipedia math articles are in great need of improvement. I never trust them when I need to learn something I don't know because so many of the ones I do know are confusing or wrong. When I do see something I know is wrong, I correct it, in the hope that eventually, all wikipedia math articles may be trusted.

Best regards, always and forever, I will remain anonymous [the url is public] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.153.115 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I could see that your "correction" had several errors in it. It's possible you fixed them, but I'll revert it again if it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Change weasel to weasel-inline

Thanks--I couldn't find that in WP:weasel, and I knew a function like that existed. I appreciate your sharp eye. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, Thanks for your comment at limit of a function. You may recall that the page (ε, δ)-definition of limit contains a blunt statement of the epsilon-delta definition in all its naked beauty so that those who with to compare it with the non-standard definition can easily do so. The page (ε, δ)-definition of limit is actually well-visited. There were close to 100 hits yesterday and comparable though lower numbers for the past month or so. The discussion at the talk page of limit of a function seems to converge to a merge, which I think would amount to a bit of an obfuscation. The page limit of a function starts with a lengthy discussion of approximation theory which is the traditional way of buffering the intrinsic and irreducible difficulty of the Weierstrass approach. Moreover, limit of a function tends to present the standard approach as the only possible one. Now certainly a majority of practicing mathematicians today to adopt this view. However, a significant minority do not. I think wiki guidelines are consistent with presenting a view of a significant minority, which are above POV pushing. Your input at the talk page of limit of a function would be appreciated. Katzmik (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house Inclusionist (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo

Why did you undo my edit to Training (meteorology)? -- IRP ☎ 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say: "If it's uncommon, it shouldn't be placed that prominently", but I clicked an arrow which submitted the change, for some reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned that people will be wondering what happened. I checked the article page view statistics, and "Storm train" still has more page visits than "Training (Meteorology)". So that means that most users are still looking it up as "Storm train", probably because it is less to type than "Training (meteorology)" or "Thunderstorm training". So for the people who may think that they cannot find what they are looking for, and why it is no longer called "storm train", by adding that sentence, it will inform people that it is uncommon, but sometimes referred to by that name. -- IRP ☎ 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC), modified 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you reply? Should I place the sentence somewhere else? It is a fact. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC), minor modification: 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Storm train" may have more visits because it sounds interesting, not because people are looking for the term. And that is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for all of the edit conflicts

Eventually technology will make edit conflicts an annoyance of the past. Sorry about that. Inclusionist (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader Edit

Is there a reason you reverted the edits to the Ralph Nader page? The three sentences were relevant to his 2008 campaign for President and cited reliable references. The focus of his campaign and the fact that he has potentially broken a Guiness World record for campaigning in the process are two noteworthy pieces of information for a third party presidential candidate. Just wondering. Sigmundane (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the alleged "Guiness World" record for campaigning as notable. The focus of his campaign (if he, in reality, has one) probably is. He certainly has the US record for campaigning for a Presidential candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning, not being on enough ballots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the info that you deleted previously (as you requested on the talk page) yet you still reverted it. Without this information it appears that Nader did not even announce his candidacy. Copana2002 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't summarized; you included all of a previous version, including the unsourced "focused". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not make an effort to summarize the info yourself, since in its current form it appears that Nader is not even running for president? I'm not trying to start a fight here, it just seems a little excessive to delete a whole section because the last sentence is improperly sourced. Copana2002 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to summarize it, I would have left one sentence, instead of the 4 paragraphs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu

Centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem

Dear Arthur,

It looks like you are not an expert in Electron structure of the Atoms. You are deleting the links that have been viewed by thousands of people, including experts since last spring and early summer.

The web site in question was viewed and approved by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann. What is your problem?

All information presented there is correct and works. If you do not understand it I can explain, but stop removing the links, please. Drova (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Dr. Hoffmann had designed the web site, and it said that on the site, that would take it out of WP:ELNO#11. Otherwise, you (the web site content author) would need to be a recognized expert in the field. I don't see that as accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you want to "throw the book" at this issue. However, you failed to pinpoint exactly what is incorrect about it. Can you intelligently explain what exactly is incorrect in the content of that link?Drova (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said. Why does it not violate WP:ELNO#11, as it's your site, and you are not an expert in the field (the guideline goes on to suggest that only experts with their own Wikipedia article should be considered.) I think it's bogus, but, even if it were correct, it shouldn't be used as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi ArthurRubin - I just wanted to stick my head in and see what was going on here. Can I be of service? Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question, and a few IP addresses which are undoubtably him, have been adding references to the website perfectperiodictable . com (spaced so that the link doesn't appear here), as if it were a usable web site describing a scientific theory. It's clearly a personal web site, which should be sufficient for removal. I first saw it at Close-packing of spheres, which I found during the naming dispute on that article. It seemed clearly inappropriate there, and considering how inappropriate it seemed, I thought I'd see where else it was added.

1. Quantum number; if the site were acceptable, and were slightly rewritten, it might justify an alternate set of quantum numbers for the electron configuration, of n+l (increasing), l (decreasing), and m (neutral) (in terms of the energy of the orbital.)
2. Aufbau principle; clearly wouldn't fit, even if rewritten.
3. Electron configuration; if the site were acceptable, a possible link, as the analogy to the tetrahedral configuration (not "close-packing") could be a useful mnenomic device for the electron orbitals.

But the site is clearly not acceptable under WP:ELNO#11, and it has some pseudoscientific baggage.

It appears he's the only one who thinks it belongs. I had to be careful to avoid 3RR, so I had to use the {{dubious}} tag on the last round. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2070s

Hi! It was not an automated patch, I fixed it by manually running the corresponding command. Unfortunatelly, I don't know any way to automatically fix it. TXiKi (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Error on Cook Levin theorem page

Dear Arthur, please join the discussion under CNF on the discussion page of Cook-Levin theorem. Vegasprof (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with the William Rodriguez Page

Mr. Rubin, I want you to check the page again. User Contrivance, like always has continued his non supported editing , NPOV, WikiNOCrystalBALL, etc. He complained to admin Charles Matthews and I received a warning. Not fair, I believe that it should have been all the way around, but then again, Mr.Mathews may not have all the time to go trough all the edits made by this user. After constant pointing by others, including you on his use of non wiki, npov, speculation and dubious websites, he has taken the complaint as the only form to hit back since he is constantly proved to be wrong. PLease do check again and if you can, communicate with Mr. Matthews about this whole issue. Fairness is what I am asking for, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks in advance.Celeronel (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Rubin, Celeronel's ideas of fairness are very peculiar, and include the privileges of 1) charging that any criticism of incompetent research or reasoning or grammar is racist, 2) posting from personal knowledge, 3) exemption from probable sockpuppetry and WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, 4) failing to respond to questions about the rationale for peculiar and often ungrammatical edits, 5) mind-reading of the subject, unjustified inferences, advertising and, finally, 6) attempts of long standing at intimidation through attempted outing and threats to slander associates of the real life person he wishes Contrivance were. Celeronel claims he's asking for fairness. What he practices is thuggery. Ask Jazz2006. Contrivance (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1#Template:2008 Boston Tea Party presidential candidate

Would you mind withdrawing this nomination so that all of these templates can be nominated? The Republicans, Democrats, and (I believe) each party listed on the Third party page have a similar - and similarly pointless - template that should be discussed/deleted all at once, imho. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I may withdraw it, as there are two other delete votes. I see your point, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll put together a nomination for the other templates at User:Philosopher/Sandbox and put them up. I think I'll wait until the current TfD is done, though - one of my pet peeves is overlapping noms taking place at the same time ("Let's rely on that precedent...wait, it hasn't been decided yet!"). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On years articles

Hi Arthur, I have been wondering if awards should be unlinked or not. While Nobel prize has more links to sub prizes, the other prizes don't. Such as the Templeton Prize on the article 2000. So what should be used? (On WP policies, links are allowed in subtitles if the whole title is a link.) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a prize which typically only has one recipient per year should be a subheading; perhaps a Wikitable or an html dd list might be a more appropriate format, if we add more than one "minor" prize. But it probably should be a link. Rembmer, though, I was in favor of linking the dates of birth and death in biographical articles, so I may be more supportive of links than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best way would be to add all the awards to a single section called Awards. Should I go with section Awards? — Orion11M87 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SRA

'Cos you and PS were editing the section - what do you think of this wording? Emphasis is on the explanation, not the authors. Suggestions welcome, it's getting harder to write the page as all the crap I've read is starting to slosh together. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

30th Century

Why did you revert my edits to the 30th century article? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be an extension of the previous item, which already has too much detail. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bit too detailed in the first place. I have re-introduced my information while paring down the original material. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nao Kudo

In the AFD for this entry you specifically ask for cleanup/creation. That's not really what AFD is for. I suggest you search the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for help or some Category:Japanese Wikipedians instead. If you withdraw the nomination, I'll drop a copy of the article on your talk page after deletion -- if you think it's useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if she's notable, meaning AfD is appropriate. All I'm saying is that the article really doesn't say she's notable, and I haven't found a strong indication that she's notable in English-language materials. The only thing in it's (the article's) favor is that there's an apparently stable article on ja.wikipedia, although I wouldn't swear it's about her, and, even assuming good faith, there's no reason to assume that ja. and en. have the same notability standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A volunteer request

Dear Arthur. I am submitting (an) RfA and if you could write an Op-Ed (Co-nom) on my contributions and understanding of Wikipedia, it would be very helpful. I have also asked Gwen Gale. Your time is really appreciated. I have learned a lot from you and I thank you for that. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would help, considering the number of times that I've been blocked, but I'll certainly give it consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. On blocks, I don't think it's a problem at all, considering few blocks, I believe were not fully justified and were 3rr. But considering you are a very good person is what matters. Mostly if not all, you understand the world in true meaning, you know the great damage done by mythologies and pseudoscience, and you are a skeptic. Oh, and have a PhD from Caltech, very nice. When I come to California in 2009, I will meet you. I am a String Theorist, and building the world's largest university (currently in planning and design stage, I will keep you informed via email). Sincerely, Orion11M87 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

better place?

We're off topic there; perhaps you could point or create a new place where we can exchange few ideas about the subjecst we've just touched. Universalsuffrage (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Please move the title 2009 in video gaming to WP:YRS standard title 2009 in games, also the new title is required for the Template:C21YearInTopic. Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A problem is that the template at the bottom of the article points to dozens of "year in video gaming" articles. This needs further investigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

september 11

there is no more proof that september 11 was an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda than there is that it was organised by the American government. it is a pity that someone of your power cannot see the fault in only being able to prove somethings truth by providing links to other media's opinions. you guys do an amazing job but one should always remember that with the role of 'speakinng the truth' comes a huge responsibility.

is it not obvious that there is a fault in trusting mainstream media to be the ones deciding what is the truth?

warren lewis south africa

--Worldwarwon (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree — meaning (1) the Wikipedia consensus, including myself, vs. (2) you and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Please take it to the appropriate article talk page, if you want to deal with the matter further. I will not respond further here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irrational Number Generator

I don't understand the article and don't really care if it stays or goes, but every time I turn around you've heaped another template upon it. Isn't nominating it for deletion enough? It may be difficult for the primary editor to assume your good faith since you have not offered any explanation on the talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added and deleted templated tags, although I see I need to add one more, POV#Title, or whatever it's called. I didn't check who added "too-technical", but it's not. I now see that the statement is trivially equivalent to Fermat's Last Theorem, but the name is not used anywhere in the real world, and the author has not provided any evidence that the statement appears anywhere in the real world. I provided most of what you might think is needed on the talk page in my {{prod}} reasons, which the author responded to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any justification for the factual accuracy being disputed. Yes, you backed off it being totally disputed, but isn't it polite to justify your reasons for disputing the facts? I don't expect to understand those reasons but I imagine the other editor might. I'm still not seeing a big assumption of good faith on your part here - although I'm aware that this is far from my specialty, I think I could spot civility and wikilove when I see it.--otherlleft (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

This revert. I should have done that in the 1st place. No way it's reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MLM article

Hi Arthur. I see you removed the addition re Helmstetter that had been added to the MLM article. While I think it still needed work, your logic regarding the reason to remove it was a little strange given that it was in response to a quote from an anonymmous article on a self-published site that was talking only about Amway, not MLM generically. On what basis do you consider it valid to include that critique but not a response from a published expert on the topic? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. The source wasn't reliable. The sentiment of the text that was removed could be included if you can find a reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's actually an internet archive version of it, i'll revert with that as source. In any case, the point remains - what makes the apologetics index page RS? It's an anonymous self-published article. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

An archive of the Amway wiki isn't any more reliable than the wiki. If there is other stuff there (pro or anti) with the same flimsy sources, then it should be treated in the same way and deleted. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the disagreement might be resolved by including any bias in the article text. "Amway representatives claim..." or something like that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter isn't an Amway rep. He's a PHD in motivational psychology and a published author on the topic of Amway, one of the world's largest MLMs. Still, I'm not so much concerned about him now as the AI reference in the first place. Reviewing their site they explicitly state - "You'll notice that we're not neutral"[4]. So we have an anonymous article on a self-published site that the maintainers themselves state is "not neutral". It may pass "external link" criteria, but I can't see an argument for it passing WP:RS.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. That paragraph should be removed as well, unless a reliable source can be found. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in question. We can probably stop hijacking Arthur's talk page now. Feel free to post on my talk page if there's any further problems with the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sewer Cover Barnstar

		The Sewer Cover Barnstar
		You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.

• I award this to you, Arthur Rubin, with humbleness and awe. You’ve done what I truly can not. Further, as you read through the 1925 article, you made improvements to the article, exhibiting the best of true Wikipedian spirit. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)