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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

11th millennium and beyond

I've been pondering whether to merge this with Timeline of the far future. I've been going over the remaining material and, bar the fictional references, which could be broken off into their own article, I'm not sure which listed events are truly noteworthy. Most of them aren't sourced and those that are are heavily slanted- are occultations of Regulus, as opposed to any other star, really that important? Anyway, don't mean to come off as a grumpy guts but I thought I'd let you know where I stood on this before doing anything. Serendi^podous 15:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts....

No real objection, on my part, except that {{millenniumbox}} would be inappropriate for an article named "Timeline...", and so we should have some hatnote pointing back to 10th millennium. I suspect Regulus is the brightest star near enough to the ecliptic that occultation is possible. Certainly, Alpha Centauri and Sirius are not anywhere near the ecliptic. "Pioneer 10 approaches star system" certainly doesn't belong in a timeline article, although one could make a case for the distant-time satellite "returns to Earth" years.

Perhaps more detail should be included up to the year 50,000 or 100,000, or this article should be renamed 11th milennium to 100th millennium, and the rest moved to "timeline"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I found some citations for some of the information on the page, so I'm in the process of moving the information over. But it will take some time. Serendi^podous 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit conflicted as to whether [1] constitutes a reliable source. Which is a shame because I think the info deserves to be included. Serendi^podous 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

about that IP....

Hey Arthur, I'm looking into the behavior of some IPs. I notice that 97.87.29.188 and you seem to have been in a scrap about Oct 2010 somehow related to their pet project, the plan.bound. article. Is that about when the IPs advocacy of that article really took off? What's the backstory? No rush, drop me a line inbetween cram sessions for the bar (no sense putting it off you know...) Best of luck in the new endeavor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the full story; IIRC, I first ran across them when they were linking 350.org to all occurrences of the number "350", whether or not referring to 350 ppm CO₂. They also wanted to list all the "350 messengers" in the 350.org article, and link 350.org to all of them. Other campaigns included adding {{for|(the) current climate change|global warming}} to all articles loosely related to climate change, linking scientific opinion on climate change to every opinion (whether or not be a scientist) on global warming, and a few others still mentioned in User:Arthur Rubin#Global warming / climate change, even though they're not doing that any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and linking all people who appeared in Planet Earth: The Future in both that article and their own, all "associate editors" of Sojourners in both that article and their own, all people who appeared in Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story (even if they didn't act in it, and only appeared in archive footage) all articles loosely connected to one of the "boundaries" to Planetary boundaries (here, most of them were properly linked in that article).... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, after policy proposal defeat, I floated a query in the [idea lab here] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quantum Decoherence

Decoherence in the environment is monitored through the Wigner distribution function of the system, and its gradual loss of negative values with time. Zurek and collaborators, cf refs 6,5,4 in the article, are quite proud of their extensive work on the subject; I am not clear on what you expected to see. I believe the Wigner quasi-probability distribution function, which is the density matrix in the phase-space representation, is the tool to use in developing any usable intuition on quantum decoherence, if the non-Throop reader is to make any sense of the article at all, as it stands. Your call to reinstate the wikilink.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring sources on the Tea Party Movement?

Regarding my edit (on the Tea Party movement) I was correcting that the source (already listed in the page as name="vogel1" ) reads "...the poll also found that tea partiers are less educated, but more interested in politics." and the wiki page reads "...likely to be more wealthy and have more education" and sources that article. I did not add a source, I simply moved the source already present, as there is a clear error here, or rather a selective exclusion or bias towards certain parts of the source. Smzcl (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The first source listed, in the the version I restored, stated "...likely to be more wealth and have more education". I actually would have expected the reverse, but we have a source. If you want to realign the sources, noting questions about the reliability of politico, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing the reference articles!

What's the problem of articles about socio-cognitivehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-cognitive ? You've written "still sourced only to Gadomski" it's not only of Gadomski articles.

First you look, after, where is something not related to socio-cognitive concepts, remove it.

Are you an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so. --CogSci11 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Gadomski an expert in cognitive science? Don't think so, except insofar he has managed to redefine his theories to be "cognitive science". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My question was: Are YOU an expert in cognitive science? And.... Do you work in a department of cognitive science? Have you written an scientifi journal article on cognitive science? Do you present poster/presentation on cognitive science conference?

If NO, you have no right to remove anything in socio-cognitive topic. --CogSci11 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit". Expert opinions are welcomes, but the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources, which does not include your claims. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"encyklopedia everyone can edit" but the founder of Wikipedia have assumed that their editors are reasonable and they correct either formal properties of articles or they correct those which really refer to their knowledge.

You've written: "Expert opinion are welcome". Mr Gadomski is an expert in cognitive science as a member of the scientific board of ECONA (Interuniversity Center for Research on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems) which include 12 biggest Italian Universities and is chairman of many international cognitive science conferences. Mr Gadomski was in editorial board of Cognitive Processing (ed. Springer) by few years. And look: First International Workshop Socio-Cognitive Engineering Foundations http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/SCEF/index.html where list of members of the scientific board, is evidence on the recognition of Gadomski. I've written this link, because I suppose, you don't know these persons which are universally recognized as authorities on the cognitive subject.

Mr Gadomski is an expert. You're not. I'm sorry. Write into google engine "socio-cognitive engineering" and everybody may see results: Wikipedia Sharples Gadomski Gadomski Gadomski Sharples In socio-cognitive engineering are two main approaches, one represented by Sharples(more focused on human oriented technology development/informatics perspective) and second by Gadomski(based on general sistemic perspective/paradigms http://erg4146.casaccia.enea.it/toga-parad.htm and functional representation of abstract inteligent agent). The approach of Castelfranchi is closer to Gadomski but Castelfranchi underline stronger social aspect of socio-cognitive modelling.

You've written too:

- "the articles should reflect what is in reliable sources" and you removed good source from international journal! Are web pages more reliable than articles of Gadomski?

- "still sourced only to Gadomski" and you removed articles, where is more than one author (Adam Maria Gadomski, Sandro Bologna, Giovanni Di Costanzo, Anna Perini, Marco Schaerf, Mauro Cappelli, Massimo Sepielli). Congratulations.

No logic. No sence.

--CogSci11 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No sense is correct. We originally started removing traces of Gadomski's work from Wikipedia when he insisted on adding it everywhere a word he "defines" was used. Then, like Carl Hewitt, he kept re-inserting it under different names. I don't recall whether Gadomski, himself, is banned from Wikipedia, but he's certainly restricted not to edit or comment on things loosely (or claimed to be) related to his TOGA meta-theory. If you can convince us that you are not he, you may be allowed to add relevant pointers, provided you can also provide evidence that he and his theories are not WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how looked this situation in the past. I know that you're not an expert in cognitive science domain (I'm sorry. It's true) and you shouldn't remove link to good journal (I bought one of this article and I can write that is good). I finished study of cognitive science but I don't want write my surname. You're unpredictable, don't keep rules of discussion and you don't answer on my questions and you've written that 'no sense is correct' - no comments) and I think that giving any information about me don't change this situation. Wikipedia can check my login/log/e-mail and they know that I am not Mr Gadomski.

I'm convinced that you have no right removing new articles from good source (never mind who is an author). o! I saw that I pasted wrong link (referring to login page) to the article(joint work), better is http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.6341&rank=1 article is better than abstract. I think, that somebody could ask Mr Gadomski to insert this article on his page but I supposed that it can be problem with copyright but in wikipedia is lot of links to books and to the materials not directly available on the web.(nevermind)

Now I'm sorry but I don't have so lot of time like you. I don't know what you do every day but I see that you're editing at night and day very different topics. Are you an expert of everything?

If you write 'no sense is correct', further discussion has no sence. I'll insert link of this discussion on Gadomski user page(if it's user page of really Mr A.M.Gadomski). Anyway. Thank you. I didn't know that he has a user page on wikipedia and I see that you discussed with Mr Gadomski on his user talk page. It's interesting :) Anyway, Have a nice day and night removing... :) --CogSci11 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate change in the United States

Arthur Rubin, In my opinion my addition in the Climate change in the United States deserved its place. [2] I received WP:Tea for this addition.[3]

Climate change in the United States: Potential effects of climate change in the United States: EPA's website provides information on climate change: EPA Climate Change. Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment. Human-induced climate change has e.g. the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extremes such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.

In the discussion we can agree about the appropriate sources: Talk:Climate change in the United States. Watti Renew (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you just deleted my additions to the tau (2 pi) page?

I didn't understand your short comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Lindenberg (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is an interesting theory. However, it would be helpful if someone other than you propounded it. Much less than that might be appropriate; your two paragraphs have nothing not in common, and your "3-way symmetry" is not a "symmetry". Aside from that, your main points are already in the article as advantages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"if someone other than you propounded it" - Bob Palais (the author of Pi is Wrong) has propounded the idea that students make mistakes with extra or missing 2's or 1/2's in their formulas because of this, both publicly and in emails to me.

When you say my two paragraphs have nothing not in common, do you mean they're repetitive? The second paragraph is purely about the practical benefits (fewer equations to memorize, fewer mistakes). The first paragraph is about this three-way symmetry being an indication that tau is the true circle constant.

When you have three sets of equations that match each other closely in form, the word "symmetry" seems accurate. What would you rather I call it?

What's already in the article doesn't mention the thin triangles at all, which these other equations are derived from, and doesn't mention the "symmetry" between the equations for circumference and arclength.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The drawing at the top of my web page sites.google.com/site/taubeforeitwascool might help make this clearer. There are also a couple paragraphs of explanatory text below it, if that helps.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Symmetry" does not seem accurate to me; but that's not important at this point. The point is that you're quoting your web page as a source, and there seems no use of "symmetry" among the tau people other than you. Furthermore, a "short arc" / "thin wedge" and "circumference" / "full circle" are examples of "arc" / "sector", so there's no difference in the formula. That does support the use of τ, but they are already included in the "advantages".

If you want to release your drawing to the public domain or with a CC-by-SA license, you can upload it to Wikipedia ad use it in the article. I don't think it that helpful, but perhaps others will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting my web page as a source. I was just giving a link to a drawing that shows the idea more clearly than I can express in written text. I created an external link with the word "Illustration", not a reference. However, I've been developing that drawing with feedback from Bob Palais, Michael Hartl, Peter Harremoes, and Kevin Houston.

The point I was trying to make by spelling out that the area of the thin triangle was ${\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}base*height={\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r*r={\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r^{2}$ instead of just writing ${\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\phi r^{2}$ is that I'm not saying this is just a very short arc. Of course we can use ${\scriptstyle {\frac {1}{2}}}\theta r^{2}\scriptstyle$ on any size arc no matter how small. But this is a triangle with three straight sides. That's why I list it separately as a third case.

Until I can convince you this argument has enough merit not to be deleted, I'll post my web page under Further reading.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I modified the entry that was there to include the circumference/arclength formula similarity. This time, unlike last time, I did put my web page as a reference. I could also list Peter Harremoës's page and a forum posting by Pi Manifesto author Michael Cavers to show you I'm not the only one who has mentioned this argument for tau publicly. But my website has the most thorough treatment of it. I actually do hope that changes as more people become aware of this argument for tau.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop calling people terrorists

Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality

Is there something you're not understanding? Public awareness (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus — to the point that people disagreeing are often blocked — that the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, and should be called such. I'm not sure about the Taliban article, and there isn't really a consensus to that effect on the USS Cole articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You block people because they are trying to make it more neutral? That's infuriating! How many of the people who support "terrorist" would call calling them freedom fighters acceptable? None, because its not neutral. Why don;t you block people who try to force their opinions into articles instead and stop the strong pro-US bias in wikipedia. Public awareness (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And don't get me wrong I'm far from infavour of probably any group that is being called a terrorist group today, its the disparity that anti-west groups are called terrorists and identical pro-west groups are called militant that started me about trying to fix it all. Public awareness (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's pro-world, not pro-US. It was suggested that we source "terrorist" in the main 9/11 article, but the decision was it was pointless to add ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]...[50]}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have "Pol pot was evil^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]...[50]}" but you don't, because its an opinion. Public awareness (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For my edit at sept. 11, I was following the rule you linked to "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I changed it to add "in-text attribution". Public awareness (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:September 11 attacks/FAQ#Q2 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I already knew a majority of editors are westerners...did you know...a majority of people can be biased against a minority? Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A terrorist is someone who tries to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people. By that standard, the 19 hijackers of 9/11/01 were terrorists. This is a matter of fact, not just opinion. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if what you said was true, it's irrelevant to my edit that Rubin undid. This is about the classification of organizations by governments and not about the labelling of the specific attacks. Hamas is labelled as a terrorist organization by its enemies, but many countries and people know they are fighting an occupation similar to the French Resistance or Polish resistance movement in World War II, and would not call them a terrorist organization. I want it so that we follow the wikipedia rule of "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I added "in-text attribution" to the article. Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Israel bombs its neighbours daily "to affect public policy by using acts of violence to create fear in large populations of innocent people." Can I go label them a terrorist state? I mean "This is a matter of fact, not just opinion." Public awareness (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might be able to make a point about al Queda, but not 9/11. That's recognized as a terrorist act by all governments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Israel, how its actions are properly described has no bearing on the issue of the 9/11/01 terrorists.

Although in some cases Israel may have engaged in unfair discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, that is not the same thing as engaging in terrorism. Generally, Israel does not target innocent people to create fear in the Palestinian population at large. Rather it attacks specific persons or installations which it believes have launched attacks on Israel's population. So, as far as I can see (and despite the fact that I do not like Israel), Israel is not engaging in terrorism. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons File licence

Hi Arthur. I added a minor comment on Commons:User_talk:Mr.Johnson1982#Chip_image. Your simple nowiki-ed demo sample had 2 disadvantages: it does not respect the indent level, and (long) text lines flow to the right out of the box (in a narrow browser window). I placed a html work-around at it, perhaps you find further use for it. Kind regards.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-19 12:02 (UTC)

Listing one Wikipedia article as a footnoted reference in another Wikipedia article

The Wikipedia article on Euler's Identity contains a section about how Euler's Identity is just a special case of a more general identity. Is it possible to put a footnoted reference to it in another Wikipedia article? (Or would this particular fact just be considered "common knowledge" that doesn't require a footnoted reference?)

Thanks for your help.

Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia articles are not reliable, it is rare that one should use a Wikipedia article as a reference (enclosed in < ref > < /ref > tags). In this particular case, we don't have a reference given. I consider it (the value of cos π and sin π) "common knowledge" or an example of WP:CALC, but it's possible that other editors might differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To Joseph Lindenberg: Why not just use an ordinary link to it rather than giving it as a reference? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed end up using an ordinary internal link. References are sometimes (like in this case) easier to use because you just stick a footnote at the end of the sentence. With links, you have to pick an appropriate word or words in the sentence to highlight. Equations don't highlight well. And this equation doesn't have a well-known name I could use in the sentence. So I ended up highlighting the phrase "the general identity". Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I should have been clearer about which identity I meant. Yes, I agree with you about cos π and sin π, but I didn't mean Euler's Formula. I meant that the sum of any set of nth roots of unity equals zero. So Euler's Identity is just the n=2 case of that identity, which doesn't seem to have an official name. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep it up

Keep this kind of thing up and you won't be an administrator for much longer.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous...I see, so he'll be desysopped for not blocking you or issuing a topic ban?--MONGO 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I see is a mention by Malleus of some facetious yet irrelevant statement by an unidentified editor for which a diff isn't provided, followed by Malleus feigning "victim" by posturing in reaction to imagined insults, followed by Malleus's inflammatory remarks about an editor's character via self-diagnosis of that editor's conscience. Probably not last and certainly not least, one can see Malleus's provocative posturing and threats to an admin on the article talk and on the admin's personal talk. Not surprising for a 9/11 article. My condolences, Arthur! :) John Shandy` • talk 05:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about your comment in Tau_(2π) Discussion

You wrote:

(Number 8 in the present article.)

It was added by the author of the reference. We need to find others who use that term, or it should be excised except, potentially, as an example of usage.

Number 8 is referenced four places. What term did you mean? "Pizza-style slices"? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What I should have said is that any statement sourced only to site should be excised, unless there are other references. "Terms" was incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interested in your comment at AN/I

I'd be very grateful if you can explain the logic of your comment here to me, as I do not understand it. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not directed at you, but at MF. IF AQFK thinks it should be directed at you, please ask him why. As far as I'm concerned, your proposals are against Wikipedia consensus, but are not intended to be against policy. MF acknowledges that his proposals are against Wikipedia policy, and thinks they should be made regardless. Whether or not they are the same proposals, the mens rea is different. (Sorry, I'm going to law school.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The extent of your misunderstanding is very impressive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Read your user talk page header. I don't see any interpretation, other than that you are working against Wikipedia policies. Now, that's fine, if you're working to change the policies, but civil disobedience, in the context of Wikipedia, is generally considered to be making a WP:POINT.

Your comments in the 9/11 area make it clear that you think that Wikipedia policies make it impossible to improve the article. That's a fine opinion, as far as it goes. But you should work to change the policies, or, at the very least, state (on the policy talk pages) how you think they should be changed. "Bitching" about the policies on article talk pages is counter-productive.

Now, I don't know your full history. Perhaps you've worked to change the policies you disagree with, or are still working to do so. It's still inappropriate to complain about the policy, or request changes contrary to the policy, on article talk pages, even if you were to do so civilly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just horse shit Arthur, and you ought to know it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Explain what other interpretation is reasonable, please. (Or, accurate, if you prefer.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any point? You have deliberately misrepresented the statement on my talk page. which makes no mention of policies, only Wikipedia's governance: "There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change". One example of that is the fact that there are still administrators like you around. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I couldn't see that it what you wrote, but it is a possible interpretation. Would you like me to withdraw some of my comments at Talk:911, and at ANI, to reflect that? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. People here seem to believe whatever they like anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I never thought or said that it was directed at me, Arthur, what a curious thing to say. Your note above that you may have misunderstood Malleus is a welcome one. The problem I am still having is the gulf between your AN/I complaint, specifically your point 2 which said "[5] (Statement that only Americans are allowed to edit the article)". As we now know that Malleus was saying the exact opposite of what you were claiming, and we now also know that he was responding to this comment, where MONGO says "If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity", could you possibly go back, apologize to Malleus and censure MONGO? I invited you to do this here, but you may have missed it. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see where your misunderstanding came from, my first sentence is ambiguous. The "to me" was meant to ask you to explain your remark to me, not to imply that the remark was addressed to me. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think it would be great if you could offer a clarification of your apparent misunderstanding. --John (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I am still waiting for an answer to the above. Let's recap; you misunderstood a header on a user's talk page (one which has been there considerable time) and thought it meant he was against Wikipedia policies, so you escalated it to AN/I with a bunch of diffs that the consensus was weren't too bad. While there, it was also pointed out to you that you had completely misunderstood one of his edits, to the extent that you understood the opposite of what it meant. I just pointed you to a pretty egregious edit from MONGO which does in fact mean what you wrongly thought Malleus meant when you reported him. You've since posted against Malleus at an Arbcom enforcement, but you haven't yet clarified that you now acknowledge your misunderstanding, or explained why it wasn't really a misunderstanding, though you apologized above for misreading Malleus's criticism of Wikipedia's governance which was a nice start. A couple of days have passed and you haven't replied. If you need more time to come up with your answer, that's fine, but per WP:ADMIN you are required to explain your admin actions, as I am now asking you to do. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Sorry to be a nuisance, but your mistakes could have serious consequences for another editor and it's important that you understand that. --John (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd thing that you think anyone should be censored for for incivility or bigoted claims when you yourself have stated repeatedly that the article is dominated by "nationalists" and you've referred to your opposition in some really saucy words as well...diffs are available here or at another venue should you choose to dance...I'll trade a topic ban for my being an SOB in dealing with POV pushing trolls such as you for a topic ban for your multi-year overt and radical POV pushing and CT promotions in 9/11 namespace.--MONGO 05:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood the header, but I brought him to ANI because of extreme incivility and personal attacks in Talk:September 11 attacks, the like of which I had not seen on that article (although, I admit, I hadn't been watching it for a while.) I still cannot see another possible interpretation of his talk page, but, under WP:AGF, I have to assume he meant what he said his interpretation was, as grammatically incorrect as it might be.

Although the ANI thread seems to have properly come to an end, the AE thread reflects new attacks after the AE/911 warning.

I don't think I have anything to apologize to, except on a minor point, to MF. You probably can still see his response. All I can say is that, if I run across MF again, and he acts as he has on 911, I'll probably report him to ANI again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. How much longer do you think you're likely to remain an administrator if you keep this up Arthur? Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably longer than you remain on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously a hopeless dreamer. Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, nothing at all learned from the AN/I report, Arthur? Nothing you would do differently? Nothing at all? You said you were going to law school and you shared the mens rea link with me; have you seen our article on vexatious litigation, it's a good one! Seriously, I am very disappointed that you can't see anything wrong in your conduct there. Maybe Malleus is right and we need to consider our options. Would you welcome a wider discussion on this? --John (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sick to death of kids like Arthur chucking their ignorant weight around. I for one would welcome a wider discussion of his behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sick of you throwing your ignorant weight around, and I now think Wikipedia would improved, overall, if you were blocked. But it's not going to happen unless you tick off Jimbo, you do something that would get the Foundation in trouble, or Wikipedia actually tries to enforce civility. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was this a good example of the civility you say you wish to see enforced, Arthur? I'm not a great believer in running to mummy whenever I don't like how things are going, and I sense you are not going to change your mind on this, so I'm going to leave you alone for now. I am very clear though that you made a mistaken (let's be generous) report at AN/I and did not have the integrity or courage to amend or withdraw when your mistake was pointed out. Please be very clear that as well as being highly disappointed with you on a personal level, I do not regard this as admin-like behavior, and that I will escalate if I see you throwing your highly-educated weight around again in the future. Have a nice evening, --John (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur....neither Malleus or John have a leg to stand on here...John has shown repeated examples of loathsome behavior for an admin and I can easily demonstrate that with a plethora of diffs should the need arise. A topic ban is in order for both editors...and a outright civility parole is inevitable for Malleus at the very least.MONGO 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, I hate to eavesdrop, but I tend to talk-stalk admins I've had good encounters with. While you've been accused of incivility, I see as clear as day on your talk page that editors have directly and overtly attempted to insult you, dismiss you as a kid (knowing full well that you are an adult), and attack your education, all of which are uncalled for no matter what mistakes or misinterpretations you may make. If these editors ever manage to gather enough children of the corn to call your administrative position into question, please notify me of the venue and I will gladly testify to the attacks insidiously launched at you in this talk page discussion. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MONGO and John Shandy`. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Judmas

Hi Arthur. I am glad to see that you are still editing Wikipedia. You probably do not remember me; I tried to help User:Ludvikus when he was improving the article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Someone has created an article on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. Please could you keep an eye on it.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense

http://books.google.com/books?id=CaDA2uhr8lkC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=L48Vqu_hm5&sig=2nbZ-rg-pD62fx8QNTEj1QTZgaU&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qMIDrggs8TsC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&source=bl&ots=tfbhUZyou8&sig=a92O0L8snMy26tvah4dEQ7FT4LQ&hl=en&ei=4RB-TvmaL5TViALXy_y5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=LiwjVsNBw-cC&pg=PA13&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8tX17AXujekC&pg=PA43&dq=%22conspiracy+accounts%22&hl=en&ei=lRF-TtToJ87OiALh0aW6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22conspiracy%20accounts%22&f=false

"Conspiracy accounts" is common and easily understandable English, but your new version is fine as well. Mystylplx (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

99999

This deletion might be controversial, so send it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Mersenne prime merger

Regarding the merger of 2305843009213693951 into Mersenne prime I think you can go ahead with that per WP:MERGE Proposing a merger IV. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm...

I'm sorry, but what type of vandalism I did? I am not a mean user, I am nice. Pikachu4170 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism was in your edit summary. The edit was merely extremely against Wikipedia guidelines; but test4 redirects to vand4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Updates to Hulda Clark information

I posted the following validated information which was promptly deleted.

___________

• Zapper: A device thought to pulse low voltage DC current through the body at specific frequencies. Clark said this device kills viruses, bacteria and parasites. In this respect, there are several videos on the Internet showing the zapper works in vitro, killing bacteria and protozoa. The concern is that while a device may work in vitro does not mean that it works in vivo. There are also some questions of safety. In one case, a patient with a cardiac pacemaker suffered arrhythmias because of interference from the "Zapper." This was an older type of pacemaker and the same kind of interference can be expected from most any electrical device that is attached to the body, such as a TENS unit. Anyone wearing a pacemaker should be warned about the possibility of electrical interference. Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer.

___________

If the FDA, NIH, and PubMed can not be cited, what relevance does the article have. It is only a censored part truth with an agenda. All of these sites are available to be freely linked to. The information is entirely relevant.

If the link to the video is an issue, it, along with others is available on youtube.com .

1. That's not what you added.
2. "A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.
3. The videos are clearly not reliable.
4. "Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

No, that would be complete WP:SYNTHESIS to the extend reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hulda Clark

You Wrote: :#That's not what you added.

The information above was cut from my computer and pasted into the page. I can not see how you claim that it is not what I added.

You Wrote: A device thought to pulse..." was only in Hulda's mind.

No, you are apparantly not aware that Hulda Clark was not the first or only one to promote the use of pulses. Even the FDA promotes the use of pulses to kill microbes such are bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and virus in milk, juices, and water.

You Wrote: :#The videos are clearly not reliable.

The videos are easily reproduced using only a source of pulsed electricity and a video microscope. They are made by amateurs and professionals alike. It is not a parlor trick, it is real.

You Wrote: :#"Recent studies show that frequencies do have an effect on reducing cancer" appears to be, as far as I can tell, a completely different device. I'm not sure about the modality.

The basis of all of this is the generation of resonant frequencies. Everything has some sort of resonance. I would submit that if you are not studied in this then you are not the person who should be rejecting the entries of those who are familiar.

On top of that, I see you frequently hiding behind the mask of neutrality, yet in this case, you are obviously taking a side with an agenda. The entire page is strictly one-sided and these are not the first facts that have been unreasonably rejected. The net result, Mr. Orwell is that WikiPedia ( the source of reliable information ) is becoming Wiki-Ganda ( a source of propaganda ).

Perhaps you should start by reading "Body Electric" by Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. It is an outstanding source of information on the influences of electricity on life and visa versa. Then study the Medical Electric Battery, Rife, Beck, and many others.

Regardless, seeing that actions that have occurred here explains to me why the WikiPedia is not considered to be a credible source of information. It only tells the half of the story that the controllers want the public to hear.

How many of Dr. Clark's books have you read completely and thoroughly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CPUDave (talk • contribs) 03:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)