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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Conspiracy theory

You do realise that the version you just removed, is the same version that you reverted TO on 26 August, claiming it was the "stable version"??? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll need to check, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I was confused myself :) You might be right that going back to Loremaster's version is a good idea though. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for rehatting IP remarks falling outside the scope of proper talk page editing

Hi Arthur,

Thanks for (hopefully) getting this anonymous un-hatter better educated about use of wiki talk pages thru a temporary block. Its possible they meant it in good faith, but hopefully they'll someday read WP:DISRUPT, where it says even good faith edits are disruptive if the editor doesn't know wiki guidelines and how to edit pages accordingly. Mucho gracias, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

With respect to Talk:Climate change policy of the United States‎‎ please be mindful of WP:3RR. The edit warring presently happening is inconsequential in the bigger picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Would deleting the sections, rather than hatting them, be a "revert"? That actually would make more sense than the initial effort to hat them. For what it's worth, would you please block the current IP if he reinstates the edit. They're obviously all the same person, and he's reverted 3 times in the past 12 hours, under 3 different IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I cannot do the blocking. But surely the collapsing option is not too much of an issue? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 28 August 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)

Editing on limit ordinal articles.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#What_is_a_limit_ordinal.3F, where discussion is currently taking place rather than assuming consensus without evidence. Currently most editors in the discussion favor language that is neutral to both definitions, as both definitions appear in multiple textbook sources (and respected Universities and departments which rely upon a single source, also differ between which of the two they use). TricksterWolf (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

IPs

I don't think I'm telling you anything new, judging from this--50.42.182.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.190.84.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that's the same editor. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, I only saw that edit, not the rest of it on the tea talk page. Silly, isn't it. Maybe we should send them wiki-kittens--they obviously have a need for rewards. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that 50. seemed to have an obscenity filter. I scanned through his edits and I think all the filter trips have been reversed, but another pair of eyes would be appreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

norm

Hi, Arhtur,

I found ur new editoring to the norm inequities between r norm and p norm. I think it will be better to put the conditions to hold the equality there, like did by the original version.

Thanks!

Shuai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

matrix norm

By the way, since entrywise matrix norm is in parallel to vector norm after vectorization, it is very necessary to add the entrywise inequalities under different p norms.How about the section "Equivalence of norms"? I think that is a good place to plug it in. Thank you for your hardworking even on labor day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.141.227 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply to my question "Reference to cribbage in the '61 (number)' article" (now archived), I'll just put the page back the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal Blue Jersey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry's GPA

I understand your point of view regarding the non-interpretation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources for this purpose. However, under WP:CALC, performing an average calculation doesn't constitute interpretation, which is why I'm trying to stick to the primary source in this instance. You seem experienced and unbiased and I'd appreciate your help in keeping this edit as accurate and sanitary as possible. I've been trying to keep the edit clean for a while now but others keep throwing dirt and nonsense on it. Your thoughts? Quophnix (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The arguments about how to do the calculation seem to make WP:CALC arguable. Still, if one divides the total grade points from the trascript (adjusted for the change from the 3 point to 4 point scale) by the total hours reported on the transcript, you might get a fair GPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely what we did, which is why it's so frustrating to have all the objections on the talk page. Check the math for yourself if you have the time. It amazes me how hard it is to keep such a straightforward approach on the books. Quophnix (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I get 2.18 (320/147). I don't think WP:CALC applies if we can get such different answers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 6 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)

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)