User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

Eh, I'm just gonna back away from this.

While you're likely in the right here, this edit-war's has been going on since August and shows no sign of slowing. I don't even care one way or the other, so I'd just as soon not involve myself any further. HalfShadow 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pickup artist edits

I am not him, I simple didnt understand you at the first time. Thanks for clarifying. The puffery and hype is recognised in the sence that its an euphism. It is as natural as natural makeup that got more chemicals then chernobyl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaskarlson11 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Koch

Just a heads up that you are at 3RR on the Koch article. Best, Arjuna (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

2017

Why did you remove the reference to the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation in the 2017 article? Aanother ignorant American douchebag. Don't do it again. There's reference to a political event on Hong Kong that you left up so I know this sort of event is perfectly acceptable to be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.129.27.67 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anniversaries are not listed in (future) year articles unless there are present, notable, document plans for the commemoration. See, for example WP:YEARS and WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

cabal mediation

Hi Arthur, it seems our mediator has gone inactive, so I've posted the edit suggestion by Nillagoon on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well have everybody !vote since it really should be a larger consensus. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, totally agree with your comments on mediation cabal referendum thing, but as the article talk page discussion is well underway, and there now seems agreement between editors with often opposing views, I've voted to close the mediation. I do share all your concerns, but I think the wider consensus can manage that.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing some litter? Needful of taking your own advice first?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 3 (number). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thoroughgoodness (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an absurd reference, but it is an absurd movie, so that may be appropriate. However, the first time you added it, you claimed it was a revert. If that's correct, you would have violated 3RR with your edit of 09:37, November 29, 2010 (UTC). I'm not going to report you to 3RR, because I think you're lying about the first revert, but, if someone else does, I'll comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A quick search of the Ofcom reference for "polemic" finds seven matches, including "the programme was clearly polemical in nature" and "Although this programme was intentionally designed as a polemic", to take a couple of examples. I'm not entirely sure therefore what led you to the conclusion that "polemical" was not supported by the source. --Merlinme (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Further research indicates that I argued for inclusion of "polemic" a few months ago, as it does seem to be in Channel 4's argument to the Commission. However, it merely being in the complaint to the commission, which is the first reference I saw this time, would not be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we all make mistakes, although perhaps it might have a good idea to dig a little deeper when removing a reference from the lead to such a well scrutinised article. --Merlinme (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts to 39th century BC through 29th century BC

I started a discussion on the talk page of 4th millennium BC, where I explain myself.LutherVinci (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting this? I only noticed LutherVinci on WP:RFPP, I have no general interest in this article, but I suggested he take some form of dispute resolution. That came back saying these figures should appear in a myths section - which seems totally sensible. Whether LutherVinci is a creationist is irrelevant, this isn't the evolution article and his points he's made here are reasonable.

There is as much validity in the characters of the Bible as any other religious book or any other countries myths and legends and like other myths and legends it is perfectly possible that the characters in the bible actually existed, talking to god aside.

Do we really need to have further dispute resolution on such a short article? It seems rather ridiculous to me... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

His insistence that the Ussher dates are the only true dates is jarring, and, as far as I can tell, the consensus is his material could only be in a "myths and legends" section, not that it should be in a "myths and legends" section unless the dates can be clearly established. Where the material should go first is in Biblical chronology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this content needs to be in a myths and legends section, but given another user wants to add it, and there are many other myths and legends already in these articles (e.g. Hindu gods, Troy etc.) there is no good reason to exclude it. With regards to dates, are there any Biblical scholars with a different view from Ussher who are more respected? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Almost every Biblical scholar had a slightly different interpretation of the Biblical chronology: Eusebius, Jerome, Lightfoot, Newton....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I can't name Biblical scholars, but our article Biblical chronology doesn't mention Ussher explicitly, except in that he differs from what we consider primary as to the time between the births of Terah and Abram. If we were to have a single chronology to Biblical births and deaths in the century articles, we should use the same chronology as in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case I suggest we go with the chronology already used on Wikipedia in the Chronology of the Bible article. But it should still be includable in one of these "Century" articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It uses two radically different ones, neither of them Ussher's; the whole point of that article is to explain that there is no consensus system (and the Hebrew calendar is provably wrong in dealing with the period from Ezra to the Maccabees, for which there is external evidence: the rabbis simply omitted the Kings of Persia who don't happen to be mentioned in the Bible). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Truly weird claims

In a recent edit comment, you stated that "FreedomWorks' association with the movement has no source, reliable or not". Even if you knew absolutely nothing about the issue and had only enough intelligence to google "FreedomWorks Tea Party", you would have immediately found http://teaparty.freedomworks.org/, which lists itself as Tea Party HQ. I am deeply concerned that this is part of a pattern of bold but trivially refutable claims. Please be more careful in the future; your reputation is on the line. Dylan Flaherty 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that falls under WP:SPS, and is not reliable. There are many sites which list themselves as "Tea Party HQ". However, a credible source has been added, even if it also makes some clearly false statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubin, you claimed that there is no source for an association, yet I've just shown that their own site admits to such an association. There is nothing here to discuss except perhaps why you keep making errors with regard to the Tea Party movement. This is not a one-time thing; it's a consistent pattern. At some point, the assumption of good faith can no longer withstand such repeated assaults. Dylan Flaherty 16:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's FreedomWorks' site, not "the" TP site, even if there were such a thing. If both sites existed, and reported the connection, it might be considered adequately sourced, even in the absence of third-party sources. Since a third-party source has now been added, I have no objection to the statement there, although I do have objections to your connected the Kochs to it without specific, reliable, third-party sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part of your response is supposed to refute the fact that FreedomWorks is associated with the TPM by hosting a site that brags of being "Tea Party HQ"? Dylan Flaherty 16:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

FreedomWorks claims to be associated with the TPm and TPHQ. We have no reason to believe it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're offering your original research regarding which organizations are "genuinely" in the TPM and which ones aren't. That is both unconvincing and irrelevant. If they say they're Tea Party HQ, you would need a confluence of neutral, reliable sources to impeach this. I don't expect you have any such thing. Dylan Flaherty 18:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So we are to trust your ideas as to which organizations are in the TPm?

That absolutely, positively wrong. If an organization says they're TP HQ, all we need is one clearly TP organization which denies to make the connection questionable. I suppose we can accept that FW claims to be a TPm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

One way we differ is that I make no claims as to which organizations that call themselves part of the TPM are "genuine". That would be original research. Dylan Flaherty 20:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do make such claims. In order to support a credible claim that AFP's funding of (some) TPm organizations is relevant to the TPm article, you have to have an idea of what is in the TPm. If (consistent with your interpretation) the Kochs and associated (I wouldn't say "affiliated") organizations fund only 5% of TPm organizations, you can't say that their funding is significant, even if reported by notable persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not disputing that such claims would constitute original research. This is good reason for you not to make them. On my part, I avoid the issue by accepting that the organization considers itself part of the TPM, so we must do the same unless there is clear and compelling reason not to. So far, you've offered a blank statement that there is no connection, which was trivially refuted, and then compounded this with WP:OR. I'm not sure there's anything left to discuss here. Dylan Flaherty 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic Reverts

Arthur, I see you reverted my reversion of QuackGuru's edits without a reason. I provided my objections in the edit comment as well as on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, we should be in the 'discuss' phase, not the 'revert again' phase. Would you revert back while this is hashed out on talk? Being as this is a controversial article, that seems to be the protocol. Ocaasi (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the version including the Ernst paper here was stable. Am I wrong? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was wrong. Although I disapprove of many of your edits, this one seems to be reasonable, so I'll self-revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that concession. Is it possible you didn't look at the edit before reverting, perhaps based on a prejudged disapproval? Ocaasi (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It looked to be removal of WP:MEDRS sourced information, but it was recently added, and you provided reasons why it shouldn't be there. If it had been there for a while, the removal would have been inappropriate before discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Is there a particular issue you have with my editing, or is just that I tend to find myself on the other side of QuackGuru/skeptics, etc?

911 Truth

My undo was somewhat accidental. I thought I was removing that portion from the article for the reasons you mentioned. I probably shouldn't edit when tired. Sorry for the inconvenience. 92.76.140.144 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Rubin, you appear to be edit-warring on David H. Koch. This includes a pattern of repeatedly reverting to a version that is inconsistent with our sources, refusing to participate meaningfully in discussion, and generally tendentious editing. As an administrator, I would imagine that you would hold yourself to at least as high a standard as the rest of us are held, but I have been repeatedly disappointed by your the example you set for others. I'm going to simply ask you to revert yourself, without going into detail about the alternatives, as you should already be quite familiar with them. Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am trying to find a statement supported by the reliable sources. Koch supports Republican Party candidates and some Tea Party goals, but it would be inappropriate to imply that he supports the Tea Party movement, itself. Perhaps the best phrasing would be that "(political) writers report that Koch supports Tea Party goals and Republican Party candidates." "Highlight" is absurd, and any claim that he supports the TPm needs to be marked as a claim. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is about what our reliable sources tell us, not what you "know" to be true. You are edit-warring and violating consensus. Stop. Dylan Flaherty 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to link the Kochs to the TPm. There is some indirect linkage, but your statements imply more than the reliable sources do. I would say that the paragraph provides WP:UNDUE weight toward the connection. Perhaps noting that there is no current connection between Koch and FreedomWorks as an objective statement would be more appropriate, if you must include FreedomWorks' current actions in an article about Koch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no need for me to make any such attempt, as we have reliable sources that succeed in it. Dylan Flaherty 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Rollback

this seems rather inappropriate... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's reverting an edit made against consensus, although not vandalism, per se. Still, I should have added a comment the first time I reverted it, which may or may not have been that one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, take a look at what you reverted... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reversion messed up the article. Dylan Flaherty 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was reverting a test edit. Quite appropriate for rollback. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite... Please check the diff link above, its quite clear what you've done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I still see it as removing a "\" and the number 3012. What do you see? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Look closer. You reinserted the \ and 3012. AniMate 20:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Now it appears I reinserted the \ and 3012. I don't know what's going on here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:Negawatt_power#Expansion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Music, mind and body DRV

The discussion that you participated in that resulted in the deletion of Category:Music, mind and body has been taken to deletion review. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Court of Auditor's opinion

How would you summarize the statement? Presumably full quotation would be disproportionately lengthy. Was pretty sure that's what it says. Take it you are in agreement that something about the CoA's opinion should be included here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not what it says. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I say, how would you summarize? This is what it says, yet as it currently stands the page shows not in citation and I have a 3RR warning. Who is qualified arbitrator? (by the way, are you a qualified accountant and accustomed to reading such documents?) Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

hi, here is a question

Hi, I read your comment in the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matrix_calculus#Proposed_.22Identities.22_section

So, you think the following chain rule for matrix calculus is wrong?

$\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Z} \left(\mathbf {X} \right)=\left(\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Z} \left(\mathbf {Y} \right)\right)\mathrm {D} \mathbf {Y} \left(\mathbf {X} \right)$

I'm curious about whether the matrix calculus has the similar chain rule. can you talk about this more clearly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.120.37.236 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's correct if X, Y, and Z are column vectors (or, possibly, scalars). It's not correct, in our notation, otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Query re reverts without accompanying explanation.

User:Arthur Rubin, I see that you have thought fit to remove the board of directors from the article on Brighterion, although you do not provide any explanation as to why. I understand that Wikipedia works by consensus and would suggest that in future you first post an entry on the Discussion page. Perhaps you could entitle it 'are the directors of relevance to a company', or something like that. With reference to another similar revert I have noticed to an article on Steffani's Niobe, Regina di Tebe perhaps you could start a discussion entitled 'is the librettist of relevance in baroque opera', or again something similar. Don't know whether you would like to revert your reverts [sic? not quite sure of the appropriate terminology] prior to consensus being reached on these matters. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of your edits are in violation of WikiProject guidelines; I see no reason why I should assume that the rest of them aren't. In regard the board of directors, the present list of directors of a company are clearly not of relevance, although the present and historical President and CEOs might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Geography

How can you say that "weather fronts", "low-pressure area", "high-pressure area", etc., are not related to Geography? Do you know that meteorology is only part of geography? -- 203.223.238.224 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)