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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Conservatism...

Rather than reverting[1], I suggest you would have done better to just fill in the missing word. It should be pretty obvious what it was. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, it wasn't obvious, and it's not obvious that either statement is supported by either source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to revert your revert so that there is no appearance of edit-warring. I'm going to then insert a citation to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/nyregion/connecticut/10polct.html?_r=1, which talks about God, guns and gays as wedge issues, so as to avoid the synthesis.

As I tried to explain initially, it is much more productive to discuss and cooperatively edit than to constantly revert. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's one word. If someone really thinks that restoring one word while adding two requested citations is edit-warring, they're welcome to try to track down an admin insane enough to block me for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you, but if L... does, I suspect an admin would be willing to block you, per Wikipedia policy. However, this time, I'll go to the trouble of verifying your sources, and determine whether you are combining two sources to support the sentence, neither of which supports the whole sentence. If you are, that's WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me if you think it'll stick. It might; admins vary in quality and carefulness. You could luck out like Lionelt did and find someone who won't even check your claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You obviously can't understand simple English sentences. I said I wasn't going to report you. Under the circumstances, now, if someone does report you on a board that I monitor, I probably will comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You obviously like to make things personal. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping vs. Votestacking

Hello Arthur. Thanks for your input on votestacking. I felt pretty strongly that there was something less than totally up-and-up about what was going on there, simply based on where Still-24 was shopping for new eyeballs. Given your detailed knowledge of policy, I would like to get your take on a recent, nearly identical incident involving the same user. [2] While I suppose what is being done here might be within the letter of policy, I think the intent should be pretty obvious: he's not looking for neutrality. He's trying to sway consensus in a given direction. I think that's disruptive. Thoughts? Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue was whether to keep some well-cited material about sexual abuse, so I went to Sexual abuse. I could also go up the hierarchy of scouting-related articles, but given the American focus of Wikipedia, I think Boy Scouts of America is about as high as it goes. If you have an alternate recommendation for a neutral, relevant and populated article to drop a notice on, feel free to share it. If you don't, then don't bother accusing me of anything. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That link (asking editors of Homosexuality to look at Focus on the Family) is clearly forum shopping, even though an almost neutral request. It's not technically "vote stacking", because the request is (almost) neutral. Any rational person would believe that anyone able to edit Homosexuality in keeping with the guidelines would be unlikely to be able to edit Focus on the Family in keeping with the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's odd: I'm a rational person yet I see no problems with the editors of Homosexuality also editing a section of Focus on the Family that concerns homosexuality. I don't understand your reasoning here. Anyhow, according to policy, what I did was fully acceptable and not forum-shopping in the least. I suggest you re-read WP:CANVAS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I have to assume you're a rational person. But if you don't understand my reasoning, I may have to change my mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You had an opportunity to explain your reasoning. Instead, you launched a personal attack. Again. Why do you keep doing this? You're apparently a mature adult and not stupid, so what's motivating you to keep insulting me when I'm trying very hard to remain civil and engage productively? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: [3] Belchfire-TALK 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've explained that WP:CANVAS allows this. I chose a single, relevant target that is relevant to the topic and left a neutral invitation. Feel free to go to WP:ANI or something so it can boomerang all over you. 21:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right; definitely forum shopping, and WP:BOOMERANG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think I did something wrong, feel free to report me. Otherwise, I'd appreciate if you kept your opinions to yourself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Any guidance on the appropriate course of action? I see education as a logical first choice, but that seems to be off the table here. It would be helpful if we could end the pattern of disruption. Belchfire-TALK 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a WP:RFC/U? Even it were solely a content dispute (which it isn't), there's no good place for a content dispute over multiple articles. Remember, of course, that the conduct of all participants in an WP:RFC/U may be considered by Arbcom, if it comes to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the matter is clear enough for WP:ANI or WP:AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that says a lot about the strength of your accusations, doesn't it? Perhaps you should take a hint from this and back off. This way, if you ever do find something to report me for, it won't boomerang against you when they notice your pattern of stalking me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

notability on 1982 births

Thank you for clarifying why my edits were reverted and understanding that I was editing in good faith. A couple questions:

1) Where are the guidelines for notability on the calendar year pages? My sense was that if they were sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia entry than they would have enough notability to be listed on this page. Where are the guidelines saying that common year pages are only meant for "sufficiently important" people? Or is this limited for aesthetic/readability issues or another reason I'm not thinking of?

2) Which one of the entries were not blue-linked? I re-checked them and (unless one of the pages was deleted in the interim) all of them still had their own pages. C5mjohn (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check WP:WikiProject Years and its talk page archives, but there is general consensus that birth/death entries on year pages require more than just having an article on that specific person. In "recent years" (since Wikipedia started), WP:RY provides more restrictions. There seems to be general consensus in regard people born on, say, July 5, 1982, would be that 1982 -> July 5 -> Births in 1982, but not the reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WARNING

In your revert[4], you made demonstrably false claims in the edit comment. In specific, you said "Actually, it was YOUR bold change." In reality, my edit[5] was a revert of Belchfire's bold deletion[6]. This deletion was the bold edit; the material deleted had accumulated over time from multiple editors, showing consensus.

You may not have noticed, since you reverted without bothering to talk about it, but there was discussion of Belchfire's bold deletion[7] and those who participated were in agreement about it being a bad idea. In short, Belchfire boldly removed material against consensus, and you edit-warred to help him. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

This notice is a record of your mistake. If you repeat your error, I will include this notice when I go to ANI to have you censured. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Looking at the presence of "wedge" in the file, you introduced it on August 8 (UTC). It was reversed twice (by me), and you restored it twice. It was left in place for a few edits on August 8. Then, on August 11, Belchfire removed it, you restored it, and I removed it again. The incorrect (per wikt:wedge issues) use of "wedge issues" by the source is not my problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If Belchfire's revert had been of one word, you might have a point here. Unfortunately, he reverted the entire "After the fall of" sentence, which I can't claim authorship of. I did work on that sentence, cleaning up the English (as that's my native tongue and I can use it at a professional level) and adding citations.

Even if it was just about the word, you'd be mistaken about the correctness of its use. You cite wikt:wedge issues, but this is a red link. Besides, Wiktionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, is it? I cited a common dictionary (probably m-w), to show that I was using the word correctly. It's also very, very easy to find reliable sources which refer to some or all of these as "wedge issues" in precisely those words.

But you say it's not that word, either. I think you need to explain yourself -- not here, but on the article talk page -- so that we don't have to guess why you keep reverting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was wikt:wedge issue, and the point was brought up by an editor which did not revert you. m-w.com reports "a political issue that divides a candidate's supporters or the members of a party"; in this case, the issue is used to distinguish the candidate's or party's position from that of the other parties'. Completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, wikt:wedge issue agrees with m-w.com, and both are consistent with article usage, as well as with the example I gave on the talk page. What's your issue here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you argue for the same text to be used in two different articles using different arguments makes it difficult to determine which or your arguments have been completely refuted. At least, unlike the Michigan Kid, you make arguments on the talk pages of the articles you want the text to appear in, rather than that of loosely related pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, and I seem to remember that I was the one who suggested that you response "not here, but on the article talk page". As for which ones are refuted, I can help: none. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, though, that the arguments for and against the connection between the Tea Party and social conservatism be placed in one article, with the exception of the additional argument that, even if it were an example of social conservatism, it wouldn't be a particularly good or important example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you pick a topic and stick to it. I could swear we were talking about the notion of conservative wedge issues, but now you're talking about the social conservatism of the Tea Party. The latter was brought up on Social conservatism but I reached out to Tea Party movement to get the attention of editors who might be knowledgeable on the subject. Since the question is whether the teabaggers should be mentioned on Social conservatism, that seems like the right place to discuss it. Once they are, the editors interested in the movement are free to update its page if they see fit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stalking

Please do not follow me around to harass me with false allegations. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm following "Still-<stable IP>" around because he has no idea what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are. If he's following you, that's another matter. I'm not following you around, and I don't know what allegations you're talking about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, you're following me around because you think it's fun to bait me. Cut it out or I'll report you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I'm following you around, in addition, because very few of your edits comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and none of your comments do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know why JournalScholar thinks I'm following him around. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't know why? Maybe because you followed me to the Paul Ryan talk page to harass me. Still-24-45-42-125 make sure to note this if you decide to report him. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I definitely followed Still to the page. He was blocked for edit-warring for removing sourced material, but you can be blocked for adding (multiple times) inappropriate sourced material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting as part of a pattern of stalking intended to intimidate editors. And, to remind you, I was blocked on the basis of a false 4RR report. But you knew that already, right? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly false. WP:3RR, in addition to stating that reverting WP:BLP violations is exempt (while it should say clear WP:BLP violations), doesn't specify exactly what "user" means in "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user". The first "user" is often used to mean a person who edits(regardless of IP or editor name changes), and using that same definition for the second "user" would exclude bot edits (but not, for the same reason, not necessarily edits attributed to a bot). Perhaps if you request clarification at WT:3RR, this can be resolved for future occurences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, this has gotten to be a bad habit with you. You were stalking and harassing me a few weeks ago as well. Your past behavior shows a history of taking things very personally and bullying people with whom you disagree. Perhaps you really don't have the temperament to be an effective Wikipedia administrator, and should consider spending your time doing something else. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Following editors who continually make bad edits is a best practice on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's really not. You're not a disinterested editor just looking to fix problems, you're the sort of person who gets too caught up with trying to find wrongdoing by a specific individual. You follow them around, harass them with barely civil (and sometimes just plain uncivil) comments and vague threats. Best practice is to disengage and allow more neutral editors to deal with any actual wrongdoing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider that if a "neutral editor" would agree to watch your edits. You are still misinterpreting enough Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and acting on those misinterpretations, that you need to be followed. Or blocked. Obviously, I'm not going to block you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Who needs a neutral editor when I have so many conservative ones following me around? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the so-called "conservative" editors are watching the particular articles you are ... editing, not looking for the other articles where you are trying to create consensus for your edits against evidence to the contrary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I can't even guess at what you're getting at here. These are the people who keep filing false reports against me at the drop of a hat. They're vigilant for any half-plausible basis for getting me blocked. What are they going to miss that only you can see? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR report wasn't false, although some of the ANI sections have been, to say the least, questionable. I'm not sure what other false reports have been made; I'm not following you to the notice boards, only to articles and talk pages. I'm willing, for the most part, to trust the notice board groupies to disregard your restatements of the guidelines.

I'm trying to get WP:3RR modified so that your actions would only be considered 3 reverts, and not 4, but it's not easy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why it would be hard. It's obvious that the intent was never to punish people for trivial changes by bots. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• another stalker/pagewatcher weighs in: 3RR is a bright line, not a permission or invitation. You don't necessarily "get" three reverts. I've blocked people for making one revert, most admins have. Also, every admin has seen a bad edit (vandalism, unsourced, removing sources, page blanking, etc) and checked contribs to see if the editor has made more such. That's not stalking, that's being a good admin. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's a bright line, yet this is an ambiguity that makes it less bright. If you want people to follow rules, you need to make rules that are clear enough to be followed. If it's entirely subjective, then let's not even pretend to have rules at all; let's admit it's just Calvinball. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule here is clear; you had 4 reverts. I am now trying to get the rule changed so that you would only have 3, but it is a proposed change, rather than a "clarification". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Time formatting

Hi Arthur,

I did not understand [[8]]. If there is an easy way I can add to your data using the same time formatting you use, I will be glad to get with the program. Educate me, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ach so! I just noticed your note at the top of the list saying you were using PST. If we are subtracting hours from UTC, it makes most sense to me to subtract five hours (for Michigan time, the IP's location.) But tracking via UTC reduces work and confusion on part of other editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry. I set my displays to local time, so I copy those times. If you prefer UTC, that's OK. I'm in PST2PDT (UTC -8 in "winter", UTC -7 in "summer"). It might be better to convert all the times to UTC, anyway, but I don't have a bot which will do that; nor are the entries in tables so I can paste them to a spreadsheet and do a bulk correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Either UTC or Michigan make the most sense to me. I don't care either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed my time preference from Eastern Time to UTC a few years ago to avoid this sort of confusion. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Arthur

Just so you know, Still is threatening to report me to 3RRN for a 1RR edit although it's actually a 0RR edit (which he claims is 2RR) since I removed an UNDUE piece. [9]. Cheers ViriiK (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You're at 2RR, and you're edit-warring to get there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE is not an exception to 3RR; whether or not Still-24 is edit warring there, as he is on other articles, you are, as well. There is a dispute whether removing material constitutes a revert in itself; If the offending material is restored, just tag the questionable words with {{undue-inline}} and/or {{undue-section}}, and continue the discussion. If the tags are removed, escalate to the appropriate board. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Arthur. Meanwhile, if I'm at 2RR, he prematurely used the 3RR warning against me which constituted harassment anyways. ViriiK (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that reverting exactly once is compatible with WP:3RR and WP:BRD, and nobody would mistake it for edit-warring. But if you want to report me on WP:3RRN, I can't stop you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ignoring Still-24's comment) Not necessarily harassment. I've made 3RR warnings after one revert, if the editor seems to be edit warring on other articles, but has stopped on those. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

However that wasn't the case here. I had already been on the D part of the BRD process prior to him. ViriiK (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Need your eyes and opinion again. Can you please look at this page [10] Right now it's over the term "Voodoo Economics" which was a term coined by GHWB. Unfortunately, it was a short-lived term and it didn't last past the 1980 Republican Primary hence the objections. Since he fought to removed the term "Compassionate Conservatism" on the basis that it's an obsolete campaign term although it isn't, he's conveniently ignoring that Voodoo Economics is really an obsolete term. Plus Reaganomics is well-known and has many well-cited sources including academic journals where as the other term gets little to nothing during the 80's. ViriiK (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not even slightly accurate, but feel free to join in the fun. This isn't canvassing at all... StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing entire communities or editors. I'm soliciting his opinion alone to myself as I stated above, not yours. There is no "canvassing" going on here. You're free to make up whatever you want to think though. ViriiK (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS states that your non-neutral summary and the fact that you targeted a single person are both bad. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray, selective reading of the rules. I asked for his opinion and wanted to know if this was the case. Did I ask him to intervene? Nope. Read the top of the page. "However, canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate." ViriiK (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bringing in specific people who you expect to be supportive of your argument is vote-stacking. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New ANI requests server be told the clock has restarted on the Mich Ext link spammer

FYI, I have started a new ANI on a matter in which you have previously expressed interest, the Michigan global warming external link spammer. (If my link fails to pop up the specific subsection please check the table of contents on the NB.)

Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: A mighty thanks - yet again - for starting the compiling project in the first place. On Aug 23, the library was blocked for a year, and the rangeblock I think is their home was restarted and extended for 3 months. I took time to figure out your footnotes today and cleaned up a lot of the nonconforming notes I added to August. If there's anyway you'd like me to tweak (or restrain) my work on the IP list page please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical coincidence

Dr. Rubin:

A) Do you really think that http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=10004 is 'not much of a coincidence'? What are your criteria? I understand that the size of the prime does not make it much of one. I understand that this is not a randomly chosen 21-digit number, so that it is no surprise that some of its final digits are 9s and that the arbitrary start is also at least one 9. I can see that 12 out of 21 is a rather small small-number coincidence. These separate coincidences, however, coincide.

B) Does http://primes.utm.edu/curios/page.php?number_id=111&submitter=Merickel really not make sense, and if so why delete before asking what it means in any case? 'Translation' in the text of the curio itself was clear enough to the editors of the Prime pages, and I worded it here, I thought, so that it was clear. Don't you think that saying I needed a better wording would have been more appropriate if you really did not understand it? What's meant is that the two numbers when their digital representations in each of bases 2 and 3 are read as though they were base-10 representations form primes; that generating new base-2 and base-3 representations, respectively, for these two new primes each also give primes when read as though base 10; that the two initial numbers (pre-translation numbers) given are the 4th and 44th of the numbers satisfying these criteria; and that the first of the two is the first to translate once also as a prime from its base-4 representation to the number obtained by an as-if-base-10 reading, and the second of them is the first to do this and then also have that new prime translate from its base-4 representation to a base-10 reading as a prime. Now that this is clear (Do I need to give the numbers in detail?); if it's true, is it not a coincidence worthy of the page, at least when the fact that both initial numbers lead with 234 in base 10?

C) Is all of the above moot because the Prime Pages is unreliable, as you seem to imply? What is your overall reasoning, please? I regret that I have not tried editing in some of the others there by other authors, but I have not had time and it looks like I might run up against some wall in getting things accepted here for publication if they come from that source anyway.173.15.152.77 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A) Yes, it's not much of a coincidence. It certainly doesn't belong on any of the number pages you tried to put it on (12, 21, 99, 9?), and I don't think it belongs in mathematical coincidences, although there are possible arguments there.

B) No, it doesn't make much sense, and it's too complicated to be an interesting coincidence. If we had an article on translated prime, it might be marginally notable, but it still doesn't fit in 4 (number), and I would argue against its appearance in mathematical coincidence, as being too complicated.

C) Prime pages doesn't seem reliable for importance or interest. I'd probably accept it as reliable for the actual formulas, but we really don't need that, per WP:CALC. It does, however, consist of submissions, and the editor doesn't seem to be a mathematical expert, or have a reputation for fact-checking (especially for the 2nd entry in 343, which would be difficult to check). However, we do need some indication of importance before considering inclusion in the articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A) Assertion without argumentation is (or seems to be to me) somewhere between flat-out failure and dismissiveness for somebody of your capabilities. I really was asking for reasoning. I suppose that just 99 (number) being put in the 'See alsos' of 21 (number) and 12 (number) (rather than placing the result itself there) is about all that I would concede. No, I did not try to put it in 9 (number). If we have these articles at all, I don't see how 99 (number) does not include this (other than the fact that it doesn't and I don't think it's worth a real challenge and my time right now).

B) Nonsense. It might be argued only that it's putting the cart before the horse to not have Interbase translation done first. I did not try to put this in 4 (number). I haven't published the whole coincidence, so it does not belong there (yet?). The whole coincidence is interestingly more complicated than what was on mathematical coincidence for a while. Where did the notion that simple makes it more interesting come from? The only way simpler comes in to my thinking is where there is a dispute about the degree to which something is a coincidence. If it is one, more or less complicated could be either a plus or a minus depending on specifics.

C) Their non-mathematical curios run the gamut, and I have my own problems with them on this (and even somewhat on mathematics--a) they have never fixed a curio dealing with electoral votes and b) a parenthetical on one of my curios about 17 that I requested removed more than once stays) and other things. But I have had other people's curios removed or corrected when I found fault mathematically, and they have many regular contributors who are bound to eventually catch most anything that is simply wrong (assuming they actually want certain things changed, which is probably not true with the electoral-vote thing). I don't know that the Pennsylvania-turnpike curio would be difficult to check. {If it's deliberately being put up falsely, it's probably because I am refusing to vote this year on account of a Nebraska war criminal thinking 6 years break from politics was good enough.}

Anyway, not important to me now.173.15.152.77 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your correct assessment in the further edit you have since made highlights, in my opinion, why the text of the article needs to be carefully expanded; and what you deleted could be one of a list in prose of things that are only illusorily mathematical coincidences. I don't agree with you simply removing something like this, I should say. You could have done a talk-page note on this in under 3 minutes, and you know it.173.15.152.77 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of tools

After I implemented your suggestion by removing the background material[11], you reverted this[12] with the comment, "(Reverted 1 edit by StillStanding-247 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Arthur Rubin. (TW))".

While I actually agree with the revert -- the article was worse when I followed your argument to its natural conclusion -- you're going to need to backtrack on your false accusation of vandalism. Thanks! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

You said:

Much as I hate to agree with StillStanding, since he's wrong so often, that does seem an accurate paraphrase.[13]

Now, I happen to think you're mistaken about any number of things, but I don't hate to agree with you on those occasions when you are correct because my disagreement is not personal. In contrast, your statement above suggests some sort of grudge against me. Was that your intention? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong so often that, when my first reaction is to agree with you, my second reaction is to reconsider. No grudge. I meant to imply that agreeing with you is wrong so often, that I need to clearly present the impression that my agreement is on this issue alone. If you can suggest better wording to convey that, I'm willing to modify it there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Way to go with that non-apology. When you finally launch that RFC/U, I really hope you don't try to pass yourself off as a neutral party. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the phrasing of the RFC/U, I might be a cosigner. I don't claim to be neutral in regard you any more, because of my observations of your actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Show me the RFC/U. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be notified when it appears. Depending on the phrasing, I'll probably either cosign or oppose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with StillStanding on this one. Rubin, this is poor behavior for any editor, much less an admin. The first part of your comment was completely inappropriate. Please try to maintain a higher level of civility and professionalism, and keep your snarky comments to yourself. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's an RFC/U, there should be a page somewhere in a user's talk space, just like I have a page for the WikiProject Conservatism RFC that's being worked on. So either there's no RFC/U at all, or it's being worked on off-wiki. Which is it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actively working on the RfC/U, although I am tracking a few diffs. I'm not sure I have the same complaints/concerns as the other parties who have suggested that "something be done" about you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, either, which is why I'm asking. Is there a place where you're "tracking a few diffs"? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Offline. I may put online the diffs relating to your acting contratry to a clear consensus, while stating the consensus is in your favor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Word Baptist Church. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't refer to your fellow editors as liars as you did here.[14] Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This accusation is outrageous. This editor did not call any editors "liars." He specifically referred to certain statements as false. I'm disappointed Viriditas that you are mispresenting another editor's words. I hope that this is an oversight, because this is a serious violation of our policies. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur's incivility was demonstraetd when he described "the lies in that statement" of User:Insomesia, who then personally objected to being called a liar and said that making a mistake is not a lie. Arthur than compounded his initial incivlity with more incivility, this time referring to the user as irrational and lacking basic English. It is quite possible that Arthur is simply misinformed about our civility policy, but as an admin who has been here for some time, I think that is unlikely. The only "serious violations" here appear to be Arthur's, and other threads noting his rude behavior can be found directly above this one. Would you like to take this to ANI as a favor for me? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Lionel, but no. That's a pretty weak defense. Rubin did not say the statement was false, he said it was a "lie". And stating that someone has told a lie is equivalent to calling them a liar. You know that. Arthur Rubin clearly has a lot to learn about good manners and civility. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lie is not merely false, it's intentional. As such, calling someone's statement a lie is directly against WP:AGF, not to mention WP:CIVIL. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I shouldn't have said it was a lie. I still don't see how anyone could have seen evidence for it in what actually happened, but that could be my failing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Don't you think this might be a good time to redact what you admit was uncivil? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent years

From WP:RY:

"Births

Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question.

Deaths

The same criteria apply to deaths as to births."

Cresix (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk: 2012#Minimum requirement to list a death. Cresix (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sædon^talk 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Viriditas has the IRC logs of this "channel" that namedrops you.

If you go over to his talk page, you can see that he confirms receiving the email from SkepticAnonymous who implicates you in this channel whatever it is. You should kindly request this dubious IRC log. ViriiK (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should. There's still a trace of my IP somewhere on Wikipedia, although I don't remember where. I edited logged out, and there were enough replies before I noticed it that I decided to leave it alone. Any admin can find my IP because I've revdel'd some of my (and other editors') not logged in edits. But you're probably right. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well now that the cat is out of the bag (is that the right expression?), at least Viriditas does confirm on the AN that he has the logs. I think I'm done now. Naturally I think the logs is bullshit and that there is no IRC channel. If there was, it certainly isn't on freenode or any popular IRC network. ViriiK (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

hi

Fair points. I can't edit the TPM page. Want to help me source more adequately? josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidmatter7 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your ongoing intervention

As your most recent error shows, you're getting sloppy and biased. I'm going to recommend that you disengage. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore your last addition here, but it wasn't minor for you to self-revert the repetition of your error. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, in part. Belchfire could (and probably should) have noted that your misinterpretation of previous consensus (as reflected by your prior posts) is so incorrect as to indicate a lack of understanding of English, but he shouldn't have restored your snipe attempt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. You hastily review a link and come to the wrong conclusion. When this is pointed out, you don't acknowledge your error and apologize. Instead, you insult me some more.

This is so typical, and if you ever do file an RFC/U on me, actions like this will help it boomerang all over you. I look forward to it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Message added 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

TNN and TP

Hello, the article, that I corrected, had totally positive (vs. totally non-negative), which have strictly positive eigenvalues of multiplicity 1. Also Fekete criterion allows one to check only NxM determinants to guarantee TP for an N by M matrix. I am not sure what is the best reference for it, and if it is appropriate for ancyclopedia... Daviddaved 00:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaved (talk • contribs)

You made real analysis look like finger painting

Arthur, I found myself reading what I consider to be the 4-chan of economists, and I stumbled across a thread where a respondent mentions you. I thought this bit of the response was somewhat funny: I am sure he got an A+ in real analysis (Caltech gave them) if he even bothered to take it. Mathematical logic, his specialty, at Caltech made real analysis look like finger-painting. Thread. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 08:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Outdenting

I wasn't quite clear on your edit here regarding outdenting. My impression was that there were too many colons and the view of the discussion could become too narrow on a monitor per WP:TALK and WP:INDENT. I read somewhere a long time ago on WP that after five colons you should start again. Did the outdenting not meet those guidelines? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Outdenting is tricky on sub-discussions. My feeling is, that if outdenting is required in a discussion with bullet ponts, you should reindent at least :::. But it was only 8 deep, which I don't consider too deep. If it reaches a point where you have to decide whether the discussion is to be at-all readable on narrow monitors, or decipherable on normal or wide monitors, you have to go with the wide. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

not sure what to do next

This edit contains a threat to remove content.  Should I take this to ANI?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me from the edit summary that it is a threat. He may simply be suggesting that removing the paragraph is an alternative solution which they should consider. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can see another meaning now, it may be an offer to agree with the removal of all of the pastor's statement, if the current pastor's statement which has been taken out of context is unacceptable.  That is perhaps a Hobson's choice, but not a threat.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Satan! Oops.

Hehe I think Old Nick played a trick on you there. Your IP demon is momentarily expelled. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Artur Rubin is the Devil himself. He thinks praying to the Almighty is "absurb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he is not the devil. But perhaps he works for demons. He thinks praying to the Almighty Father YEHOVAH God through His Son YESHUWA is absurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Praying to the Almighty in a Wikipedia article is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no one that makes Wicker Baskets that is a follower of YESHUWA and gets to the Father YEHOVAH God through His Son? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wicker Baskets? Relevance? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well aren't these WIKI articles woven like wicker baskets? 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you would be untruthful by saying such a thing because they are woven. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No. You seem to have no idea what Wikipedia is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No you do not know. Wiki is short for Wicker. 2602:306:C518:62C0:85EA:2FA3:CCDA:E7C0 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)