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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads (talk • contribs) 01:18, December 8, 2010

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)

Are you an idiot, or only pretending to be one? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are the one who is an idoit. "Meteorology" is the study of weather elements, which occur in the troposphere, which is a shpere that is stuidied by physical geography. If you have any misconceptions, you should go to check it by yourself. Please make sure that you are polite as well. -- 203.223.238.224 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're both out of line, but Rubin is an admin and ought to know better. Cut it out before I report you both. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ruby sometimes forgets how to communicate effectively... I am not saying this is par for the course but if he wakes on the wrong side of bed you will get this sort of unprofessional behaviour which I agree is unexcusable, particularly for someone who should be esteemed as admin of Wikipedia. This unfortunately fuels the fire of the bad name Wikipedia is getting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.174.87 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Instead of wasting my time and yours, please discuss with me your basis for reverting my work. I have made different additions to the Alex Jones (radio host) article. If you revert any more changes I make without discussing the issue with me first, I will consider your changes vandalism. 72.240.82.155 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only possibly constructive edits were the additions to the list of guests, and even that was questionable, as one of them was a redlink. The rest were unsourced innuendo, including the categories and See also sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Rescue/Arthur Rubin proposal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mhiji 01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

United States gravity control propulsion research

As an administrator, perhaps you can explain to me why you can or should override the support by the Relativity Taskforce for United States gravity control propulsion research. I don't see you listed as a member. Do they give their support to random pages outside of the category of Relativity? What is their purpose if their endorsement is useless? I'm honestly confused and I ask in good faith. Thank you. xod (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The support of the Relativity Taskforce for the article has nothing to do whether it should be in Category:General relativity or subcategories. (It certainly shouldn't be both in a category and link to the category.) That being said, there may be an adequate number of articles to support the creation of Category:Fringe general relativity or Category:Fringe interpretations of general relativity, in which this article almost certainly might belong. Rephrasing, the taskforce does not own Category:General relativity, nor would even a finding by the task force that the article belongs in the category would be binding, although that might require some consideration. There's no claim to that effect in your comment.

I could add at least 5 NPOV-related tags to the article, including WP:PEACOCK. Could you (or the task force) please work on bringing the article marginally into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before worrying about what categories it might belong to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy answer. You write The support of the Relativity Taskforce for the article has nothing to do whether it should be in Category:General relativity or subcategories. This is where my confusion lies. The decision of the Relativity Task force really doesn't break the tie in this category edit war? What happens next if somebody reverts your change and puts the article back into the category? Is it settled by the seniority of the editor? I'm not invested enough to engage in the edit war myself, I'm just trying to learn more about the way Wikipedia works, and what to expect next on the page. Thanks! xod (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion should be in the article talk page, unless part of a general discussion of the category (in which case it should be in the category talk page) or the Taskforce (in which case it should be on the task force subpage.) If it's in one of the latter locations, it should be pointed to from the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of state leaders in Deaths section of Year articles

There is consensus on one of the Talk Pages (2008 or 2009) that state leaders be included (unless there are strong arguments not to). I haven't got time to find exactly where, will check after work. It should probably be added to WP:RY. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support for "Mathematics Made Difficult"

Hi, Arthur!

I made a page for Mathematics Made Difficult, a classic text in my opinion, but it was proposed for deletion as "not notable enough". If you also believe this is worth a reference, could you lend your support on the talk page for the article, or add more to the article itself? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The {{Prod}} has been removed, and you probably shouldn't have asked me about it, per WP:CANVASS. However, if it goes to AfD, you may comment on WT:MATH, and I'll probably chime in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your revert on Revision history of 10000 (number)

I added today the number 14745 with the comment: 7th number with more than 1 digit that can be written from base 2 to base 18 using only the digits 0 to 9. You replied: "seems a non-notable property (the end of the base list is arbitrary; does it do so in base 19? base 20?"

Well, to avoid an edit war.. I would like to answer you: - no, it stops at base 18, at base 19, it starts using letters. And adds some precision: The original idea was to find out if some numbers could be written using only digits 0 to 9, in as many consecutive bases as possible. From base 2 to base 21, or above there is no number above 9. From base 2 to base 20, there is only number above 9: 20 From base 2 to base 19, there are only 2 numbers above 9: 19 and 20. From base 2 to base 18, there are only 10 numbers above 9: 18, 19, 20, 1027, 1028, 1029, 14745, 9020076688681, 9439828025162228377 and 9439829801208141318 From base 2 to base 17 and below, there is an infinite number of such numbers.

So why bases 2 to 18? simply because for those bases, there is a finite, yet interesting number that matches the definition.

Note that a lot of numbers are listed as just "prime number" which is a very common characteristic. This characteristic of numbers, to me, is much more interesting than whether a number is prime or not, mostly because for a specific set of digits, one can find a series of bases for which the number of numbers matching that characteristic is as large as possible while staying finite.

Besides, a lot of numbers are not listed having any particular property, while I'm sure a lot of them have some unlisted property.

I request that you restore the entry at your convenience. Edit it, if you like, with some of the information given above.

Thanks in advance. Dhrm77.

Because of the number of arbitrary pieces of information: digits 0-9, and bases 2-18, being a member of the finite list doesn't seem a notable property. Being the last one may be notable, but seems only marginally so. The fact that I don't consider the property interesting may affect my decision to notice it, but I don't think it affects my judgment that it doesn't belong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that some of the pieces of information may seem somewhat arbitrary, but so are a lot of other information given on wikipedia. Similar series of numbers exist for: - digits 0-1 in bases 2 to 5 - digits 0-2 in bases 2 to 7 - digits 0-3 in bases 2 to 9 - digits 0-4 in bases 2 to 10 - digits 0-5 in bases 2 to 12 - digits 0-6 in bases 2 to 14 - digits 0-7 in bases 2 to 15 - digits 0-8 in bases 2 to 17 - digits 0-9 in bases 2 to 18 (listed above) - digits 0-A in bases 2 to 20 - digits 0-B in bases 2 to 21 - digits 0-C in bases 2 to 23 - digits 0-D in bases 2 to 24 - digits 0-E in bases 2 to 26 - digits 0-F in bases 2 to 27 etc... I consider it a notable property because it deals with the normal digits used in base 10, and because with those exact parameters, there are relatively few numbers that have that property. Those numbers being rare, they are notable. 14745 was the only number between 1029 and 9020076688681 with that property! The fact that YOU don't find this property notable doesn't mean someone else won't. I would suggest you don't make a judgment call based on your personal preferences. By your own standard, since I don't find "pronic numbers" of any interest, I should probably eliminate all mention of them in wikipedia... That would absurd, and contrary to the intent of Wikipedia, to bring knowledge to people. So I ask again, please revert your revert. This is only a small line in that range of numbers which is largely incomplete.

Hewitt

Arthur, I've raised a concern at BLPN about the reverting. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Reverted citation in polytope article

Hi, I have commented at Talk:Polytope on your reversion of another editor's citation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmad Zahir

Like me, you stepped in to revert an IP-hopping editor's repeated edits at Ahmad Zahir, as his version had not achieved any support on the talk page (nor did it seem likely to gather any support, the way he was going). Unfortunately, following your page protection request, it looks like the page is now fully protected with the IP-hopping editor's version intact. AtticusX (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is notable?

I would say that any film's World Premiere is a notable event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMercury39 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly in regard the film, but never in regard the actors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

JEL:Q

As you are aware, the deletion of this category was undertaken in anticipation of the deletion of Category:Journal of Economic Literature Categories. The result of that discussion was Rename. I request that you reverse your changes, and implement the outcome of the CFD discussion. JQ (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apply to DRV about the January 18th deletion of the category. Category:JEL: Q was a separate deletion (G4), related, but not subsidiary to the confused CFD you note. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that you are now actively wikistalking me, I think it would be simpler for me to withdraw from the entire Wikipedia project. I'm a busy person, as you can see from John Quiggin and I really don't have time for this.JQ (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When I see an editor making questionable edits, I sometimes look at his/her edit history for other questionable edits. I find that your insistence on putting EMH in the lede of all technical analysis articles is POV-pushing. Perhaps you should write about something you are less enthusiastic about here on Wikipedia, contributing only to talk pages of articles where you have a non-NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision you made to HAARP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program&diff=408608376&oldid=408586763 Please explain why my addition was removed. Also, the way you added at the end of those two movies the new text about Jessy's TV show, make it read as if his show is also fictionalized which it is clearly not. - the least you could have done was create a new sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.144.14.140 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In no specific order: It is fictionalized, and you know it. Aside from that, you copied the show's description of the episode, which is a clear copyright violation (even in the article about the show), and it's too much detail for one episode of one show. Even if he went (near or to) the site of the real HAARP, it's still fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. as this is my first edit on wikipedia, ill go ahead and work on it, and submit a new one which i hope you will let fly. thanks for your time. for the record: I hope this is not a result of your opinion here regarding the content of the show. that would disappoint me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The show, like America's Most Wanted, is primarily entertainment. Any facts about the subject of an episode are secondary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

see.. your opinions are coming out, which i think are irrelevant. this is not Facebook, but an online encyclopedia. Your edits can only be legit if they are stripped of any opinion. It makes no difference at all what you think of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series. I really do hope your further edits to my words here will not be influenced by your opinion. I think that will simply put shame on the entire existence and meaning of this grand website and source. I am still working on it, and have been reading here about the rules - doing my best to give you no reason to edit my words and be over picky with me, but rather sit back and respect their addition to the already existing information about HAARP. You can be sure, I am going to do ALL i can to make sure my addition will be 100% perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ok here is what i have come up with. please let me know if this can fly. if not, please let me know why. please be detailed in your comments. please note that I have used the every word for my addition directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory_with_Jesse_Ventura - so there can be no copyright issues you mentioned.

"In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura (December 2, 2009), the former Navy UDT, and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, visits HAARP to uncover the truth behind rumors that it is being used as a weather modification weapon, an instrument for mind control, or both."

thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even so, (and I think the copyright problem lies in Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura), that's too much detail for a single episode of a non-news program. I think the most that could be reasonably be said is:

• In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Jesse Ventura investigates HAARP.

Any more detail presupposes the show is intended to be factual, which requires some further investigation. Use of the word "truth" should only be done in a direct quote, and the details of what he is investigating requires more detail. Under those circumstances, it may deserve a full sentence, rather than being appended to the fictional references, but any more detail would be, IMHO, WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I think you have stripped way too much out of it, but to be able to move on, how about this as a compromise:

• In the first episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Jesse Ventura, former Navy UDT and Minnesota governor, investigates HAARP.

will that work? i honestly see why not. the few words about his background are incredibly relevant here. there is nothing wrong with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorienN (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find any relevant background in Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura or Jesse Ventura, and I don't consider his being a Navy UDT (which requires a Wikilink, as I can't recall exactly what it means; you probably mean Underwater Demolition Team member or lead) or Minnesota governor as being relevant background toward the credibility of the show. I think his professional wrestling background better explains why he chose and/or was chosen to host the show than either, but that is original research on my part. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up. thanks for proving my point Arthur Rubin. Your entire response here so very much fits your profile and background its actually sad. enjoy the power while it lasts. i hope you are happy .

Re: Lester Brown

The honorable mention cite seemed OK, so didn't understand the deletion rationale. If it's an SPA issue, do you mind if I add it instead? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable? It's a top 100 list for 2010; who knows if they had one in 2009 or will in 2011. I have doubts about the Time Heroes of the Environment list the SPA added, but it's better than an annual top 100 list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence, I added the same top 100 mention for Nouriel Roubini in 2009. Foreign Policy Magazine is a very influential and respected publication. They put out other widely referred to lists, such as the annual Failed States list. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Global thinkers of 2010

Hi, concerning your edit in here, I think you should have a look at this page. However, your decision as an admin is fully respected. Best wishes, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, a more realistic search only has 31 hits, of which at least 2 seem to only have an incidental "2010". Still, I'd like to see a noticeboard discussion, although I don't know where the appropriate board is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there are other articles having such info.The number of them was not important for me. I just checked a couple of them to make sure I have not made a mistake. I believe mentioning it in the article is a better choice. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 15:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do object to adding a standardized blurb to all such, as 99.52.150.146 was doing (and without checking whether that 31 includes the 14 just added.) If, on individual consideration, you consider it appropriate, go ahead and add it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Real Numbers

What part of the text you reverted on Jan 19 2011 is original research? The text is incomplete in the sense that there are no citations yet, but everything stated in it is considered "common knowledge" among mathematicians. The only original thing in it is the wording. Lapasotka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the statements are so far from mainstream wording as to constitute material requiring a source.

Please work out your proposed sections on a user page or a talk page section before adding alternative views to the existing material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)