User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

To Do list (from July block)

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

Edit summary vandalism

You have to delete the page and then restore without the vandal edits. It's cumbersome and time-consuming. I wish there were a quicker way to do it. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rotation Matrix/Eigenvector slew

Rotation Matrix, version 11:31 31 July 2008, is a suitable merger.

But unfortunately there is some Gurch!!

Stamcose (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

question

hi, i asked for clarification here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Melissa Farley RfC

Talk: Melissa_Farley: RfC: NPOV and BLP issues?

Thought you might be interested. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Intermittency

Hi, I hope I've not trodden on your toes by zipping-up some of the comments on these two pages. Feel free to move things about if you wish. Verbal chat 15:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I don't think I would have done it, myself, but I have no objection to your attempt to defuse the situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Arthur Rubin, I realize that you are upset that I cautioned you about reverting the other day, but following along behind my edits and reverting me in multiple locations is fairly disruptive, especially since you did not contact me first to express any concerns. Especially at the talkpage of WP:WORKINGGROUP, which is an ArbCom-appointed group that I am a member of, and you are not. You are welcome to post at that talkpage, but please refrain from deleting messages of Workgroup members. Thanks, Elonka 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still a clear WP:CANVASS violation, unless the working group page is exempt from that guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you actually read WP:CANVASS. There was no violation. Instead, it is actually encouraged for "Editors who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion, might also place such neutrally-worded notices on the talk pages of a WikiProject, the Village pump, or perhaps some other related talk page." For it to be canvassing, it would have to be messages on a large number of individual editors' talkpages, or an excessive number of postings, or messages that were written in a non-neutral manner. --Elonka 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be appropriate if it were not directed to a group of which you are a member. The RfC doesn't relate to the page's purpose, although I suppose it does relate to the question of whether you should be removed as a member of the group, even if no other sanction were proposed. The fact that you are a member of the group, and the page "belongs" to the group, makes it clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, in relation to the above, what is the "secret report" you've mentioned on Elonka's talk page? Is it online anywhere? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A location for the draft was just mentioned as being at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report in WT:WORKINGGROUP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2008

Arthur, I edited the 2008 article. I posted under the June headline two items: the start of the UEFA Euro 2008 and its end. I wouldn't mind if u erased just the start, but why the end? It was a major event in sports and Spain won a trophy that's only played every four years. Plus look back at some of the older articles, most include such big events that concern football (soccer). Look up for example 2006 and read about the Fifa World Cup. Am not critisizing your action, I just need to understand your reasoning for this... Adrockos555 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that was a mistake. If I recall correctly, there was another edit I reverted at the same time, and I just removed all the new edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thank you... Adrockos555 (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: TWP redirects

Another editor changed Talk:Railroad to include the redirect project banner; I saw the change since it was on my watchlist. Since it now stored a project banner, I added the TrainsWikiProject banner to indicate the WikiProject that is closest in scope to the redirect's subject matter. I have no strong opinions on whether that talk page should be a redirect to Talk:Rail transport or whether it should contain project banners as it does now, but judging by the small number of pages that links to the redirect's talk page, it makes more sense to me to list the relevant WikiProjects. The page move that created this talk page redirect was discussed at WikiProject Trains in June. Slambo (Speak) 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the project banners should be below the redirect? On the other hand, thinking it over, perhaps the redirect should be below the project banner, indicating the move? I still think the target of the main article should also be on the talk page, but I can understand your point of view, and didn't check who changed what. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

confession time | paris agreement

hey mon,

confession time regards changes to the 2015 page about the paris agreement, etc.

I have the references, etc, but to be honest, I am utterly bewildered by the cornucopia of icons at the top of this text box, and I really don't have time right now to figure it all out.

Would it be appropriate to plonk text and straight html links into the 2015 talk page and let some angel take care of it if it stacks up? Or is there a wikipedia formatting guide or even better, interface, that doesn't look like a NASA shuttle dashboard?

ta,

jason

avaiki (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know of any tutorial for handling the Wikilink citation templates, which I think is what you are having trouble with. Dumping it to the talk page is OK, but there would probably need to be some appropriate Wikipedia article to attach to the statement before it could be included, and I don't think Paris agreement (or Paris Agreement) is the correct name. Perhaps there's somewhere in the Help: space that could help you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

888 (disambiguation)

Curious why you're reverting (without comment) the addition of Aug 8, 2008 to 888 (disambiguation) ? –xeno (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Becuase it's not used, except in the marketing campaign for a movie to be released today (where it's "8-8-8"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if two people thought it should be included, is it doing any harm? Also, the Chinese clearly consider it to be representative of the date, having scheduled the opening ceremony of the Olympics today in line with their reverence of the number 8. And, as you know, rollback should not be used for good faith additions. –xeno (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Chinese government also refers to it as "8-8-8", but I could be wrong. And, although we can assume good faith, adding unsourced material which is found primarily in advertising, may be assumed to be taken from that advertising. I'd accept it with the phrasing, "In advertising", 8-8-8 may be used to indicate August 8, 2008. In fact, I may add that, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A fair compromise - thank you. –xeno (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 9

I created a bot approval request for the time-category sortkey fuction you requested. The request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 9. Could you look over the trial diffs to see if the bot is doing what you were thinking it should do? (It would be best if you could reply on that page, rather than here or my talk page.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The task is now done. I reverted a few bad changes the bot made, and I see you reverted at least one. Feel free to look through User:Polbot/time sorting log at your leisure. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Money article

Could be that some intervention is required on the money article Arthur. It just got ripped to pieces again by the same person that seems to have a thing for some odd aspects that really do not make a lot of sense to me or others. It was pretty well agreed that it looked pretty nice toward the last of my editing. I adding some nice pictures and other stuff... Let me put it this way. It just is bad now. Not factual. Not accurate. Borderline it is not. It is hijacked and very very odd. skip sievert (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed the same thing just happened to the Commodity money article also... and reverted that one. I do think he is making a case against just plain old very well known info. skip sievert (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He just did it again to History of money the one you reverted. I am going to revert it again. He did it right after your revert. skip sievert (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll check whether User:protomoney has received a 3RR warning, and watch it, yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur.. he is doing it again on the Money article (Protomoney is). Completely strange, useless information that does not make sense. He just keeps pasting in the exact same stuff that everyone editing the article disagrees with, and removes. I do not particularly care for his Swastika description of some coin that he keeps adding. It is not a Swastika... or remotely connected to that term. This further degrades the information ... not to mention that he does not understand English as to writing it. skip sievert (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur.. this is the point where the article got wrecked it looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=next&oldid=230114054 I can not reverse the edit because of conflict page changes... but this may be the place to go back to. It was all pretty much downhill from here. Can you bring it back to this point? As said it will not revert for me now because of technical changes. Maybe I could bring it back piecemeal. skip sievert (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can [undo] a series of changes but selecting the difference between the two versions out of the history, and clicking the [undo] link to the top right. If you get desperate you can revert to a previous version by clicking on it (from the history), click "edit this page", and be aware that you may be reverting other changes made after you see the article, as that overrides the edit conflict detection. I'm busy in two other articles at the moment. I'll get back to this, but, unless you're in danger of being seen as being involved in an edit war, you can do most of it yourself. (Note that only User:Elonka considers reverting edits made with no other editorial support and more than one edit supporting the previous version as an "edit war", so you're probably safe on that score.)

Unless, of course there some good edits in there with the bad.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I went back to this point http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money&diff=prev&oldid=230114054

Which was then finally free of Protomoney nonsense... and where everyone pretty well agreed that the article was looking pretty good. There may be some minor adjustments to make... but it is back in good shape and ready for just ordinary improving again now. It has been over 24 hours since I messed with it... so that should be safe as to over editing it. Any way to prevent that person from continuing to wreck it with nonsense and gibberish?skip sievert (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article RfC seems to have gotten one comment from the outside, which doesn't really represent a consensus. I suppose a user RfC would be the next step. I suppose he could be blocked for disruptive edits, but I don't think we've really reached that point yet. (And I'm an involved admin, so I cannot block.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I think it was at least two people that showed up to say he was all wet. One quoted ... One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.. in regard to that particular editor... and another made a very pointed comment that they agreed that it was purely and oddly left field. Protomoney did immediately put his stuff back in after you reverted and tried to put up explanations of why you did so... last edit before this. skip sievert (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Hi. Well it seems that maybe there are important things to say abouthe the man himself (in particular his condamnation for swindling). And there's quite an important controversy over his engine that justifies a separates article for it. I'm going to explain your suggestion on the article's talk pages and see what other contributors think.

Regards,

Xic667 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FTN

Per our recent discussion at AN/I, I am curious if you had a chance to review my last comment at FTN. I am curious not only about your take on this debate, but also on my commentary there. If you have a chance, drop me a note and let me know your thoughts. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the admin dispute you mentioned at AN/I, if you are referring to Coppertwig, I don't think that he/she is opposed to inclusion of the homeopathic info at Atropa belladonna either. I don't think he/she has stated a position. If you go to User_talk:Coppertwig#Mentorship, you will see that Coppertwig recognizes the consensus to include. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne

Arthur, I'm not sure the block on Arcayne is necessary given the editing pattern today on Jack the Ripper. It doesn't look like egregious edit warring, and it was 2 reverts, so what about the history there merited a 48 hour block? Avruch ^T 16:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that it appeared to be baiting User:DreamGuy, rather than attempting to improve the article, was the trigger. He had been blocked for 3RR a year ago, or I would have given him only 24 hours, with DreamGuy still getting 48. Fairness suggests either the article should be protected, and both blocks reversed, or both edit warriors should be blocked.

I was going to report the block at ANI for further consideration, when I saw the yellow flag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"14:54, 12 August 2008 Arcayne (Talk | contribs) (51,948 bytes) (we don't need more than a single reference noting its usage. If people demand more to prove the point, we can revisit the discussion, but its a minor point, at best) (undo)"

Is this the baiting part, or is there another element I'm not seeing? Avruch ^T 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does your parole prevent me from contributing to discussions at the article discussion page? I have no plans to edit in article space until the matter is resolved, but I thought the discussion page might be a gray area.

Btw, where are we supposed to have had negative run-ins? I don't recall any. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to your contributing to Talk:Jack the Ripper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You referred to previous run-ins. Where/when are we supposed to have had these negative run-ins? I don't recall any. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think our respective opinions in the Elonka affair might be considered a conflict. I'm sure Elonka would consider it so. She probably thinks I'm on a Wikipedia:tag team with User:ChrisO, even though I had no previous contact with him before the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you, I never considered our difference of opinion a conflict whatsoever. As well, I think we have never really interacted in conversations about Elonka. Was there anything else that is recent? You pointed to four points of locus (and recent points at that); the recent stuff about Elonka followed the blocking. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You might have noticed it already, but DreamGuy posted a reply that specifically addresses you in the 3RR complaint I filed. I'd want someone to let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to alter the block, as I wasn't edit-warring or baiting, please? I would like it clarified for posterity, so it doesn't cripple opportunities later on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Money article

I do not think that the new guy editing information on this article (Criticisms.. and Alternatives), is really interested in presenting a well rounded view... He did not seem to understand what you said about Post scarcity systems... and the long scientific aspect of studying those concepts. I added more sources and refs even.. Two separate sources for notability as to the origin of energy accounting and several academic papers are cited. He has reverted it now. I put it back now twice. Not sure.. this guy lists himself as an economics professor... and can not seem to absorb a different concept of subject.. or so it seems.. he seems biased by calling all the information fringe without a real discussion. Fringe it is not... and that is his reason for deleting it. skip sievert (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA & AT/RE

• I suppose the last would tend to indicate I'm not uninvolved

In fact, I tried to say in the boards that AT and others have been pushing a fringe pov; the notice on you had replies by Eleland and others about AT/RE behavior: what I wanted the people in the boards to see. —Cesar Tort 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I didn't mean to expose you at all, but you know who. —Cesar Tort 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

All of this is quite new to me, but thanks for taking care of everything. My comment might at least have the merit of showing that I am not on a "tag team". Or perhaps it was a classic double bluff smoke screen. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

tag team

I think as long as Wikipedia emphasizes collaboration and consensus, "tag team" will be the epithet of choice for POV-pushers. That is why I think the essay on tag-teaming is worth keeping, although I think it needs to reflect a wider range of views and experiences that its initial form. I just did some editing of it and would very much appreciate it if you would go over it and make what improvements you see fit, and add to the discussion as you see fit. My edits were motivated in part by my concerns that tag teaming was being misrepresented or respresented ina way trhat missed the point ... but also because I thought the essay was poorly writen and becoming overwrought as people added to it; I wanted to onclude diverse views while also streamlining the language ans organization. Anyway, I would value your attention. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Coin Problem

I've addressed your concerns for the 'special sets' section. Borisblue (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Carnoustie2008

is this User:Mika2008? Started up about the time Mika's block would have expired. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Is it worth requesting a sock check, or are they just going to be blocked separately? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Mika and went to AN/I, where it was pointed out that he'd not edited for a while. So I unblocked. Looking at Carnoustie, I see similarities. Erratic editing- some good, some bizarre. Cheers, Maybe continue the thread I started at WP:AN/I. Or start anew. Dlohcierekim 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you crazy? You remove everything I wrote, simply because YOU think a part of it is wrong?

Instead of talking, or correcting something which you think is wrong , you prefer to remove all of it? Protomoney (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority has already been rejected by consensus.

All sections which alter the definition of "money" to exclude "commodity money" have been rejected and will be reverted. You can change consensus be providing reliable sources (which does not include recognized experts in the history of coinage unless also recognized as experts in the history of money).

I don't really see the relevance of Hammurabi to the history of money, but you should, as it also provided for the first official mint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? You name consensus your POV? I provided numerous of references. Where are the references that support your view? Where are your reliable sources? Protomoney (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is at the RfC link in Talk:Money. And your references are all clearly books and articles on the history of coinage. We only have your assetion, not even that of the authors of the references, that that is the same as history of money. (And, although this may be a hypertechnical point, if the book is on the history of coinage, then we can only consider it reliable as to the history of coinage, unless some expert on money specifies that they're the same, or possibly if some external expert on money states that the author is an expert on money.) The "alternatives to money" and "criticisms of money" sections are probably quite rightfully gone, as most of the sources were the Technocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On Wikibreak for about an hour — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My references are much more reliable than yours, of an online newspaper [1] entitled "Shells are believed to be 100,000-year-old jewelry". What this article has to do with money?????. I repeat my question you avoid to answer. Please answer before reverting again money article. WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? Protomoney (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy. Yet Again

I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input.
At the JTR dab page, I removed a reference to JTR standing for Jack the Ripper (which seems a pretty narrow field of folk who refer to it as such). Shortly thereafter, DreamGuy reverted it back in, noting "revert clearly incorrect -- the song JTR is about Jack the Ripper, used all over", which seems to address the inclusion of a song, which I had not touched.
I undid this revert, noting that the song hadn't been removed. DG responded by reverting yet again, noting that "the existence of the song and the software proves this one is legit, plus other sources".
One doesn't prove the existence of the others, at least, not the way that DreamGuy is suggesting. Now, I could simply ask DG to please discuss the edits, which he would (as per his regular schtick) ignore. As that seems to be counter-productive (it resulted in you blocking me for "baiting"), I am going to set this matter entirely in your lap. Hopefully, you can provide some illumination to DG that neither I nor anyone else seems capable of doing. My only other step is to again report him for contentious editing. I certainly don't want to be accused of edit-warring or baiting. I am going to wait and see how someone who sat in judgement of me handles the same sort of situation., - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Jack the Ripper in the disambiguation page of JTR. A simple google search, like this one: [2] shows it to be a common and widely used abbreviation for the phrase. It's a simple entry, extremely well supported. Google itself will prompt the user searching for the single term JTR to click on Jack the Ripper as a related term. That JTR is widely used as an acronym for Jack the Ripper is a fact.

Arcayne has failed to elicit a single editor in his quest to delete the encyclopedic record of the general public's use of the abbreviation JTR, indeed he's made no attempt at all. This is simply a continuation of his attack on DG, one done without even a hint of consensus or intellectual basis. No amount of wikilawyering or continued forum shopping will overcome the basic fact: JTR is commonly used by a wide audience as an abbreviation of the phrase "Jack the Ripper". Therefore it's inclusion in the JTR disambiguation page is entirely consistent with all that is Wikipedia. But, as we all know, this has nothing to do with the acronym JTR and everything to do with Arcaynes personal vendetta against a Wiki editor. 75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pot-kettle comment, Anon-Who-Stalks-My-Edits. Were I interested in the slightest in feeding you (or indeed, in your comment whatsoever), I would have directly solicited it. I am not going to disturb Arthur's page by arguing the point here. When reverted, a person is to go directly to the discussion page, to provide an argument for their edit, not engage in edit-warring. We don't rely on Google, as results from there can be manipulated by a small group of fans. Were you actually interested in editing, instead of focusing your edits on attacking me, you might have discovered that by now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that Editors may only post when previously invited by Arcayne. Nor is it acceptable for Arcayne to have whichever Edit or Revert he chooses and all others must create a discussion and seek consensus to change it. Has the thought ever occurred to you to seek consensus before you act? The question was simply is JTR an acronym for Jack the Ripper - Google is an excellent source for demonstrating common usage. Add this: [3] A list of JTR acronyms from the Dictionary.75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an alternative, Arthur. I am not sure how long it will last, but it seems a good effort. As well, thanks for mostly ignoring the anon troll. I certainly try. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem still remains, Arthur. DG is talking about an apparent consensus that I am not seeing, and is at his 3rd revert for the day (I have stopped at two, as undoing the revert again isn't going to have any effect, and might be seen by an admin as baiting). Are you seeing one? What would be the appropriate next step at this point? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the edit has been the consensus edit for over two years now. Here is the page from 2006:[4]. It's just a common use of the term[5] and has long term community consensus. Arcayne has made 'no attempt to gain a new' community consensus - His edits have been a heavy handed and unilateral reverting of the long held consensus. He is baiting and acting in a very un-wiki manner while trying to wikilawyer himself into a "win". Arcaynes actions in this matter do not further the best interests of the Encyclopedia or the civility and respect for long standing community consensus needed to build it.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input." -- LOL -- so running off to another editor with a history of personal conflict for no reason to try to establish a mob action instead of following Wikipedia policy is Arcayne's idea of not showing edit-warring, etc. The only reason he left this here was specifically so he COULD edit war, and to do so through wikilawyering b getting someone else to do a revert on his behalf to avoid being blocked again like the last time he pulled this stunt. Man, talk about an editor who clearly does not get Wikipedia policies in the slightest.

I would hope, Arthur, that you in the future remove yourself from such obvious and clear tag teaming, especially considering your history of teaming up with Arcayne and also the fact that you unblocked him last time long before his block was supposed to expire solely so you could forge yet another fake consensus on a talk page while I was unable to respond.

All in all it'd be nice if the people who are only editing out of personal conflicts would stay the heck away from any JTR-related article space. Certainly if your goal is to pretend you are editing in good faith, these actions do not support that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

changes inconsistent with the WP:MOSDATE ?

You wrote: "You seem to still be making changes inconsistent with the WP:MOSDATE, although I haven't rechecked The Chicago Manual of Style." Would you kindly mention one or more such articles and specifically what the inconsistency is. Anomalocaris (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily recently, but:

• 4th century BC — use of spaced mdashes. Not precisely in the MOS, but Wikipedia:Timeline standards specifies a regular "-" rather than a spaced mdash for setting off subranges. I honestly think a ":' would be better than any dash, but the timeline standards and corresponding articles within Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year are the appropriate venue for getting it corrected. Specific examples at the present time:

• Late 4th century BC — Diadem, reputed to have been found in a tomb near the Hellespont. It is now at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
• 399 BC Socrates is executed in Athens on charges of impiety and corrupting Athenian youth.

• I don't recall the article, but date ranges such as February 17 - March 1 require a spaced ndash, because of the spaces within the dates.

That's all I can remember at the moment. Your corrections of dashes in the text of the articles and of entries is appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Violation of parole

Arcayne made a post in direct violation of his agreement not to at the Jack the Ripper article.[6] Knowing what a stickler for the rules he is from JeffPW's[7] [8][9]memorial I think its important that he stop disrespecting Admin's and using the rules only to further his agenda and twist everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.140.62 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the parole should only last as long as the block would have lasted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And you will recall that I asked you for clarification before even participating in the article discussion. Seems I have a brand new anon "fan", Arthur. This is why I asked you to refactor your block. As I had not baited or edit-warred, you have effectively given the uninformed, anonymous and possibly mischief-minded a brand new hammer with which to swing at me with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Can you please read the wiki page on Novus Ordo Seclorum ?

And then and only then explain why the link is not appropiate, as in my opinion it removes bias leading the reader to make up their own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)