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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

I Give Up

So, the article on Income Inequality in the United States was completely rewritten, with the express purpose of eliminating all contrary / alternative discussion ...

READ ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH POLITICAL BIAS AT WIKIPEDIA: http://wikibias.blogspot.com

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA: I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource: First, you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). Second, you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative. Third, the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed. It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case)... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset. Fourth, the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation? Fifth, all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically. One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors. Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. The worst feeling in the world as a Wiki-editor is fighting an onslaught of editors who do not share your opinion, while those who support you have to anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch you take the beating from a distance out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution.

Wikipedia needs editors like me. But trying to bring balance in this environment is like slamming my head against a wall. I am done.

I respect you enough to let you know ...

Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr

Thanks, Tolinjr. I appreciate your effort. As you know, I lean to the right (at least compared to Lenin), and many of the editors appear to lean to the left (again, compared to Lenin). Unfortunately, ArbCom seems to have taken the position that civil-POV-warring is better than uncivil warring in favor of neutrality. It would not be "politic" for admins to disagree.

It should be noted that socio-political userboxes were userfied, as part of the determination that "official" userboxes should only be used to indicate interests, not positions. I expressed the opinion then that self-identified conflicts of interest should be officially noted, but, consensus was against me.

There are a number of editors who (WP:AGF) believe that only economists who agree with their position are "mainstream", and, not being a professional economist, I cannot refute their assertions. Wikipedia must (per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc.) prefer mainstream sources to non-mainstream sources, so the battle has moved to "what is mainstream". I'll be sorry to see you go, but I can understand your concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate your thoughts. My thoughts as an economist ... Economics is an art. Anyone can interpret data or statistics and establish their own opinion as to what they mean ... causes and effects. Having been around it thirty-five years, theories ebb and flow, falling in and out of favor over time. Right now, its the Keynesian's turn. When the economy blows up as a result of massive government overspending and loose fiscal policy, the Chicago/Austrian school will be back in favor (although it will probably not be in my lifetime). The only thing that prevents the natural cyclicality of it are political policies that interfere with that process.

I saw so much potential in Wikipedia and had so much respect for it (from the outside looking in). What a terrible and massive disappointment to see it as it really is.--Tolinjr (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How does it feel to be completely wrong? If you're worried about out of control spending, look no farther than the Reagan and Bush years. Yeah, facts, they are funny things. You've got billions to build armaments, but not a single dollar to help grandma with her health care. Nice value system you've got there. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. User:Viriditas Out of the shadows fires a Wiki-sniper. I'm not a fan of Reagan's or Bush's spending either (sorry to disappoint you) but I do believe that free-market capitalism is far better than the alternatives. If people took responsibility for their own lives, rather than feeding out of the government trough, we would all be much better off. Enjoy ...

THE FALLACY OF POPULIST SOCIALISM: "The dream of forcing capitalists to share their wealth ... and the subsequent reality that the wealth merely shifts to politicians." --Tolinjr (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Free market fundamentalism is a pathology best treated by strong, regular doses of facts and evidence. A lot has changed in the world. It's time to update your economic paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Viriditas Don't cry for me Argentina ... or the poor guy they found down there on Monday. That's socialism in full bloom ... perhaps the paradigm you are thinking of?--Tolinjr (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking of the Reagan Recession of the 1980s, that robbed the middle class and transferred their wealth to the upper class, the Savings & Loan crisis that robbed the public, and the War on Drugs that put entire communities in prison. I'm thinking of Poppy Bush and the first Iraq War that robbed the treasury, education, and health and human services departments and led to another recession. And of course, I'm alluding to the eight years of outright thievery by Bush and Cheney, which robbed the country blind, committed war crimes, and made the average American poorer and less secure. I'm thinking specifically of Bush's Great Recession, the largest transfer of wealth to the upper class in history, and the unmitigated gall of the criminal financial sector which demanded that the public bail them out. The free market fundamentalism that you espouse has made people poorer, destroyed the environment and destabilized the climate, contributed to global financial instability, and killed hundreds of thousands in major wars based on lies to support corporate interests. Your ideology has failed, your beliefs have been shown without question to lack any kind of long term benefit, and your values are bereft of the most basic understanding of economics and social benefit. In short, your belief system, when put in practice, produces the greatest benefit for the least number of people, and cannot be considered a rational economic policy by any reasonable thinking person. Is that perfectly clear or do you need further evidence of your failure? Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Congressional Budget Office / Brookings Institution study (2007) and Pew Research Center Report (2009) both concur that both rich AND poor got richer during the Reagan administration ... In 2012, National Affairs journal published the following, "The implicit assumption behind the case for the injustice of income inequality is that the wealthy are the reason why the poor are poor, or at least why they cannot escape their poverty. If this claim were true, it would be much easier to connect income inequality with injustice, and so to justify a redistributionist agenda. Yet this assumption rests on another economic premise that itself is highly dubious: the idea that income is a zero-sum game. Moral critics of inequality often portray total national income as if it were a pie: There is only a fixed amount to go around, they suggest, so if someone's slice gets bigger, another person's must get smaller. Much of the moral debate about income inequality seems to rest on this zero-sum theory. As Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine put it last year, "This income shift is real. We can debate its effects all day long, but it's real. The super rich have a much bigger piece of the pie than they used to, and that means a smaller piece of the pie for all the rest of us." This is a completely facetious statement, because in any economy, the total amount of income is decidedly not static; economic exchange is not a zero-sum game." This is corroborated by a Pew Charitable Trust report released in 2009 entitled "Ups and Downs: Does the American Economy Still Promote Upward Mobility?" and by a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, finding that both middle and lower income Americans experienced absolute and inflation-adjusted economic gains between 1979 and 2005, thus dispelling the notion that increased earnings of high-income workers generally cause people to be poor or prevent them from improving their economic status.--Tolinjr (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hereby bestow upon you the coveted "Strawman of the Year" award. Not a single word of what you've said above is relevant nor pertinent to income inequality. Not one. Of course, that's your strategy: divert, deny, distract.[1] Meanwhile, the facts show otherwise. 9 million manufacturing jobs were lost during Republican administrations, while 7 million were gained under Democrats.[2] The facts show that that conservatives work against the average working person and do not have any interest in creating jobs. In fact, Republicans are consistently on record encouraging companies to move overseas to the detriment of American workers.[3] Your argument that "increased earnings of high-income workers generally cause people to be poor or prevent them from improving their economic status" is patently absurd, as American workers have repeatedly lobbied for higher wages and income, only to be rebuffed by free market fundamentalists who want the government to give them tax breaks to move overseas and hire cheap labor. More to the point, income inequality lowers wages. So once again, we see corporate welfare for the rich at work. Free market fundamentalists gut American education so they can hire cheap foreign workers instead. We see again the failure of free market fundamentalism and yet another reason why no reasonable person can support it in good faith. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Viriditas Take a good read. You are one of the prime reasons Wikipedia is in decline. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ --Tolinjr (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I read that article when it originally came out almost two years ago. Your links are older than your political beliefs. Has it occurred to you that the problem is your own political bias? You accuse everyone of having a bias; tell me, what responsibility do you take? Do you admit that you have a political bias? What have you done to work with others, to improve Wikipedia, and to work towards a compromise? Nothing? Then, obviously, you are the problem. Stop blaming everyone else. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not one single word of Viriditas's last two posts is relevant to "income inequality", and little is accurate. If I weren't involved, I what suggest a topic ban on Viriditas on all articles which mention or might mention market capitalism or libertarianism. He obviously has a WP:POV which he will not ignore for the purpose of editing. But, in any case, he is not welcome to attack (or even argue with) Tolinjr on my talk page. It's up to Tolinjr to decide if Viriditas is welcome to argue with Tolinjr on Tolinjr's talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Facts are funny things, but evidence is not a POV. Why do free market fundamentalists and libertarians tend to gravitate towards totalitarian fascism? Nothing I've said is inaccurate, nor could you possibly find a single inaccurate word in what I've written, since I base it only on the finest reliable sources. I scoff at your claim of inaccuracy. Welcome to reality, it must be difficult to face the sunshine for the first time. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Why do free market fundamentalists and libertarians tend to gravitate towards totalitarian fascism?" Only in your mind. As well ask why liberal Democrats gravitate towards totalitarian communism (note: small "c", not capital "C"). And you're still not welcome to argue with Tolinjr on this page. With his permission, I'll collapse this thread. Your permission is not necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You proposed a severe, draconian topic ban based only my talk page comments, not on any edits I've made to any article. This was not in my mind, this happened here in this thread, and it isn't the first time. You call yourself a libertarian, but you are very quick to come down hard on anyone who questions your religious beliefs. Some philosophy you've got there. I find it indistinguishable from fascism or totalitarianism. More to the point, psychological studies of conservatives have supported this argument, showing that conservatives tend to favor groupthink and obedience to authority over independent and critical thinking. So the facts are once more, against you. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I proposed the topic ban based on your posts on various article talk pages, and at WP:ANI, as well as at least one previous thread on this talk page. I haven't found any actual article edits you've made; if there were some, they would undoubtedly be in violation of WP:NPOV and probably WP:COI, but a topic ban for you on libertarianism and market capitalism is at least as justified as almost all of the topic bans in the Tea Party and Gun control ArbCom cases; and allowed under the American politics ArbCom case. I admit to not being uninvolved; but the POV you are promoting is nowhere near WP:NPOV.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If Viriditas makes one more post on my talk page, in which he promulgates his WP:FRINGE interpretation of libertarianism or market capitalism, I will file a request at WP:ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I decline to report any more specifics of Viriditas's wrongdoing in this thread. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur. Good luck. --Tolinjr (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I see this topic on this talk thread started because someone was complaining that they're unsourced rants weren't included in a wiki article and Arthur Rubin agreed and admitted he is conservative. This was already inapprrpriate so it's bad form to threaten Viridiate for putting his 2 cents in. Popish Plot (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(@Popish Plot: To begin with, I'm not going to correct your horrid grammar; I've done worse when posting using an iPhone.) Actually, Tolinjr was complaining that quotes of personal rants were appearing in the article, and his weren't. Viriditas then came on with irrelevant and potentially libelous comments about libertarians. Of the three, Viriditas has violated more of Wikipedia's core principles than any others referred to in this thread. And, for what it's worth, I only claimed to be conservative in a sarcastic way (compared to Lenin); Viriditas attacked me for my actual asserted libertarian tendencies, not for alleged conservative tendencies. It's difficult to keep score without a program. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, tolinjr went on a rant (with horrible grammar you were silent on) which is obviously inappropriate on a talk page, though you agreed with it. Viriditas chimed in, and you called him a sniper, now maybe one shouldn't use a talk page as a forum but this entire topic was started with an innapropriate rant so it must all be fair game. I feel you should delete this from your talk page because as you also noted, I deleted one of my comments from a circumcision page, but it was because I got emotional. The bottom line here is are the valid sources that show the link between fasicsm and libertarianism? Yes? Then why shouldn't be be included in the article? If it offends you to consider this, log off, think about it. That's what I did concerning the other topic. And I promise I won't revert the edit without seeing what it was about :) Popish Plot (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because a so-called "reliable source" exists which says thus-and-such, does not mean that thus-and-such must be put into our article on the subject. If in our opinion, thus-and-such is false, meaningless, misleading, or irrelevant then we can and should exclude it from the article. After all, "reliable sources" are not infallible. Indeed in many cases they contradict each other.

Although some socialists may argue otherwise, fascism and libertarianism are violently opposed to each other. Any suggestion to the contrary is deceptive and unfair, even libelous. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has it's guidelines already about what a reliable source is. Your opinion doesn't matter. I do have an opinion on libertarism, it leads to fascism because it gets you to want to drown legitimate govt in a bathtub, then when that govt is no longer around, such as how the Weimar Republic became too weak to stop Hitler, a fascist, from taking over. Careful what you wish for. Now this is my opinion but it is also backed up by facts such as Nazis being anti socialism and invading a socialist country, who were the USA's allies, and should have remained our allies but a phony cold war was beneficial to corrupt arms manufacturers and bankers that financed both sides. Let's not repeat history's mistakes. Popish Plot (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if libertarianism would lead to fascism, there would be no "proof", as libertarianism has never been tried. A weak government is not "libertarian", although libertarianism does recommend that government be prohibited from doing many things "normally" considered functions of government. Whether or not I agree that the US and the Soviet Union should have remained allies, the question is irrelevant to libertarianism or fascism.

<rant>A reasonable analysis would should the Weimar Republic failed because of the sanctions applied to Germany after WWI, leading to an unsupportable economy. After the US loans were stopped, due to the Great Depression, the Nazi Party, representing the disaffected populace, obtained a sufficient minority in the Reichstag to prevent it (the legislature) from doing much of anything; a general consequence of a parliamentary system with a strong disruptive minority, or a bicameral legislature with the houses dominated by opposing political parties. (Some libertarians would say that was a good thing, but it generally leads to existing laws being enforced arbitrarily, rather than an actual weakening of government. A libertarian system would lead to limited national, while the later years of the Weimar Republic represented limited legislative government, with the the executive unchecked.)</rant>

But none of this is relevant to Wikipedia, without reliable sources. And the sources V have so-far alluded to represent a minority view, even within populist (We seem to have a different definition; I meant that government should cater to the desires of the populace) analysis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Libertarianism is just anarchism without thinking things thru. The rich prefer anarchy because if you're fighting each other you can't fight them. BTW look at what todays Featured Article is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation Popish Plot (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Popish Plot: You definitely shouldn't be editing articles about libertarian concepts if you believe that non-mainstream opinion.

I think we're done here. Your comments have nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, and are not of interest to me, so are not welcome on this talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well I promise not to ever say anything on your talk page again after this, I have one last request, I'd like some advice on how to make your wikipedia article on yourself improved. I do see you are very notable but it's not mentioned in the article. I think this might be a reliable source to add. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html?_r=0 :) Popish Plot (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Popish Plot: That article has been suggested, but consensus seemed to be against using it. Consensus can change, but check the talk page archives before working on it. I keep saying I'll upload my publication list; perhaps I'll really do it some day, so that others can decide which publications might be notable. Perhaps there is even something on my performance on high-school-level math exams in local papers or in the American Mathematical Monthly from the early 1970s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

IP: 99.112.213.139

Hello Arthur, Could I just bring to your notice that the block evading IP is again edit warring on the Central Intelligence Agency article and is also adding overlinking to other articles. Can I please leave it to you to action? Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Arthur and thanks for your message of thanks. It now looks as though our block evader is "editing" on Central Intelligence Agency from a similar IP address (99.112.213.137) and from the same location. Is this the time for page protection? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Taxation As Coercion

Thank you very much for providing a non-opinion. I will add more thought later. Shyguy76767 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shyguy76767: "Thought" has little place on Wikipedia, unless it is backed up by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discussion

I am requesting action at WP:AE regarding a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which you edited. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I don't see anything at WP:AE, nor do I see any recent edits I made to Talk:Gun show loophole, nor could I reply if I had, as I am subject to a topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the noise, but I had to tick all the boxes. It's trivia but if wanted have a look here. That is my request at WP:AE—it has been closed already because it was a pretty obvious situation where there was an inappropriate talk page section. Your comment was in October 2014! Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Shirley Ardell Mason

Not sure which article you were reading when you reverted my edit, but it says she was a commercial artist in the very first sentence, its also in the infobox, and she is in the category "American artists". So, if you don't want her in the artist category, you need to make some changes to the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning in List Of Wikipedia Controversies

I've undone your revert of my edit because under MOS:IDENTITY it states "An exception to the above is made for terms relating to gender identity. In such cases, Wikipedia favors self-designation, even when usage by reliable sources indicates otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." I'm quite happy for there to be a note that the pronouns are correct under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but for Wikipedia the female pronoun can absolutely be declared to be the correct one. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—In light of your edits regarding Private Manning at List of Wikipedia controversies (which happens to be on my watchlist). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The term "correct pronoun" should be noted as "correct according to Wikipedia policies", or it must not be in Wikipedia's voice. I won't edit the article further, though, even though the statement that it is "correct" is original research as written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

World Renowned Publisher Not a Reliable Source ???

Why do you think a McGraw Hill Technical Term Dictionary to not be a reliable source? That just seams to be a biased personal point of view. McGraw Hill is probably the largest publisher of technical educational books in the world.

We are not that different. I was professionally tested to have an IQ of 186 in the 8th grade. Unfortunately that seams to have been at the expense of memory. Never was good in subjects requiring memorization of facts. So I was only exceptional with logically subjects. I went to collage and high school at the same time. I write my first operator system when I was 19. Also wrote compilers at that time. I learned on my own. No professors or teachers at the collage knew the first thing about them. There was no computer science at that collage. Just data processing. I was a math physics major. But I had already learned differential equations from books checked out of library's. I completed the collage math entrance exam in 15 minutes. We were given 4 hours to do. And had the highest score attained. I missed two three level polynomial substution problems. Should have used scratch paper. I got 100% of the higher math SAT test problems correct in to 10th grade. Off the percentile charts. I favor the libertarian party. But do not align myself to any group.

I was born in 1947. So maybe I was the one before you. Every 10 years you said. But I favor simple elegant solutions to complicated uncomprehendable complex ones. Many things I see as simple are complex to most.

At True data I designed a single board computer board used in a data collection terminal, and wrote the multi-tasking real time operatoring system for it. Designed the protocol we used for the terminal network. I used a top down grammar to spec the protocol.

I have done a lot of research on the term reductive grammer. There are other definitions saying the same thing in other online dictionaries. I found it used on a compiler compiler site. I picked the most notable athorative site to use as a referance. So how can an academic not respect the definition given in an academically recognized athorative publication by McGraw-Hill. Steamerandy (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

2002

My last edit has been deleted. I am still THE NEW ONE here and I do not know everything. So far I have written one short article on my own on Betty Cody.

I have just found out that Recent years article cannot Wikilink anything other than the date of death. Was that the reason for deleting my edit in the sectin: 2002 Deaths/January ?

Would it be possible to get it back in the shape: January 3, Zac Foley, bassist of the band EMF (b. 1970)

I am not a vandal and it is very discouraging when at the very beginning things you edit are being deleted. And I have read that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" and such was mine. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Radosław Wiśniewski: Because of article bloat, there are guidelines for additions to recent year articles (defined as since the start of Wikipedia, in 2001). Those guidelines, at WP:RY, include that, for a death to be included, the person must have an individual Wikipedia article, international recognition, and at least 9 articles in other-language Wikipedias at the time of death. In general, the first two criteria apply to all year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on February 14, 17, and 21

Redondo Loves Wikipedia (2/14), Wik-Ed Women (2/17), and Unforgetting LA at the Getty (2/21)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has three events in mid-February -- please consider attending! First, we have a Valentine's Day edit-a-thon appropriately named Redondo Loves Wikipedia, which will take place at the Redondo Beach Public Library from 10am to 1pm on Saturday, February 14. Join library staff, the Redondo Beach Historical Society, and others to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of Redondo Beach! Second, we have a Wik-Ed Women editing session on Tuesday, February 17 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Third, we have an Unforgetting LA event put on by East of Borneo in collaboration with the Getty Research Institute. Come help improve Wikipedia's coverage of LA design and architecture, and have an awesome free day at the museum -- parking will be validated for edit-a-thon participants! If you'd like to use particular books from GRI's great collection, be sure to email before 2/13 (instructions at event page). And be sure to check out our main meetup page, because we already have three SoCal events scheduled for early March! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

MI library ip

FYI it seems the kid visited a public library. Vsmith (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About the time of the 2012 elections we watched the IP take a trip to Florida and back. I'm mystified how they make so many edits in such a short time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Consecutive edits

Please explain what you mean by consecutive edits are considered 1 edit. What if someone had edited between his two edits? Would they still be considered consecutive? Atsme☯^Consult 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR carefully. (I'm on my smartphone again, so I cannot quote the section.) It specifically states that consecutive edits are considered 1 revert. I've lobbied for irrelevant interviening edits to be ignored, but no consensus was reached to change the guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme:

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

— Wikipedia, WP:3RR

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

To Atsme: So the answer to your question is — no, they would not be considered consecutive if someone managed to slip in a intervening edit, even if it is unrelated to the dispute in which you are engaged.

Thus you should try to pack as much of your reversion into a single edit as possible.

Also, to be on the safe side, I try to wait 24 hours between reversions, i.e. I try to follow 1RR to be sure that no one thinks I have violated 3RR even if I make a mistake.

If you make a mistake and perform more reversions than you intended, then immediately revert yourself to avoid being punished. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett

I'm not actually in favor of keeping the article on Jacob Barnett, but you deleted it as a speedy G4 based on a 2011 delete AfD decision when there was a later AfD, in 2014, that changed the decision to keep. Using a G4 speedy after that history seems a bit strange and out-of-process to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice that; reading it, the closer doesn't seem to have correctly interpreted the arguments, but it's too late for a deletion review, except as part of another nomination; and it still doesn't appear to have anything not in the deleted article. I'll restore it (including the deleted edits, but probably not the deleted talk page). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The issues were discussed at length at AfD and DRV. Rightly or wrongly, the subject was widely covered and became widely known, and the article is getting 12,000 views per month. All the controversial material about disproving relativity etcetera has been removed from the article. Re comparison with 2011, most of the links that have been retained are to material published since then. Viewfinder (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TUSC token link & email

Arthur, when clicking the link nothing helpful comes up. Also, above, you say we can email you but I don't see the email link on the left. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

When toolserver became unsupported by de Wikipedia, I didn't update the link here. As I don't recall ever using one of the tools which was authenticated that way, I didn't check; and it appears it was supposed to be on my User page rather than on my User talk page. I'll change the link from the direct URL to WP:TUSC.

As for Email, if you look at my user, talk, or contributions page, there should be an "Email this user" in the left sidebar under "Tools". Or you can enter Special:EmailUser/Arthur Rubin. If those don't work, ask for technical help. I'm an Admin, not a SysAdmin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ideology

Hi Arthur. I'm troubled by your frequent recent suggestions to the effect that a source that is "opposed" to a subject is disqualified from reliably reporting on it (such as this comment, for the sake of example). The question isn't the source's ideological position, it's its factual reliability. There are ideologically driven news organizations out there that have solid journalism credentials and do solid investigative reporting and editorial work. Frontline and Fox News come to mind. Some of their more ideologically-tinged language should be used sparingly and carefully, certainly, but these organizations shouldn't be deemed unreliable (or discounted for balance purposes) just because they're ideologically driven or "opposed" to the subjects they're reporting on. Then we have organizations like CMD that provide informative material but are run by political operatives with no reputation for fact checking. I have no problem with calling these sorts of "watchdogs" unreliable.

I could be wrong, but I believe if you trawl through RSN you'll see a general consensus for this dichotomy. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't see a "reputation for fact-checking" in most of the "far-left" sources frequently used for articles on conservative organizations. Some, yes; Mother Jones generally has a reputation for fact-checking, as long as opinions are properly noted as opinions (and we have to check carefully whether the statements are "facts" or "opinions", as their word is not good enough), but many of the others have no such reputation. Use of non-mainstream partizan sources as indications of "notability" or "importance" is more problematic; we can say information is obviously notable to them as it is noted by them, but extrapolating that even to "notable to leftists" is questionable. As for the relationships between the Kochs, ALEC, SPN, and DonorsTrust; some of the sources seem usable for the facts of the relationships, but not as an indication of why anyone should care. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, do you realize that there is no longer any such thing as a "far-left" or even "leftists" in the United States? I'm very curious why you seem to think there is. I've maintained for quite some time that this is a scare tactic, a bogeyman used by conservatives and free market fundamentalists, to provide justification for their failed policies and ideas. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Viriditas, maybe Rubin or Fleischman know, but I don't. You say failed policies and ideas. Compared to what? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Perhaps relevant - afaik atm re US economic outcomes (based on "policies and ideas"?) => at the end of Clinton's term in 2001: a substantial surplus - and no recession; at the end of W-2's term in 2009: a substantial deficit - and a great recession - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are an expert at moving the goalposts. Are you claiming that the "left" has moved "right", or the definition of "center" has moved "left"? The first could be true or false (I believe, it's generally true), but the second is "not even false". The "mainstream" definition of "center" seems to have moved right, but the mainstream definition is not really applicable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, man you (Arthur) have a lot of jaguars! Yes, Mother Jones is a great example. I appreciate your focus on reputation for fact checking rather than on ideology. I agree that when you get to the fringes (in any direction) there are media organizations that seem more driven to persuade than to inform. This is certainly true in the liberal online media sphere, organizations like TPM, Think Progress, etc, etc., where in my experience the persuaders and the informers can be difficult to distinguish. On the right there's generally a more obvious line between the legitimate conservative news media and the advocates. In my view, the key for Wikipedians is to look primarily at objective factors such as journalism credentials, rather than at ideology, which is only passingly relevant, often subjective, and as a practical matter often leads to the endless nasty disputes that litter the halls of RSN. (And for the record I disagree with Viriditas that there's no longer a far left in the US.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:. I'm curious how you can disagree. There is no "far left" power base in the United States. There is no major far left political party that has any influence, nor is there any organized group that has representation in any current issue or policy under discussion. Again, this is a bogeyman, it doesn't exist except to keep the far right in power. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are still some far-left people in America, communists and Trotskyites. Some of my relatives are, regrettably, among them. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice. At least you're up front with your own fringe ideology. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Trotskyites are not "far-left"? The occupy movement? The Progressive? ThinkProgress (used as a source in some articles, even though a blog, according to our article)? My statement that our sources used in articles about conservatives ("far-right", or not) are far-left doesn't mean they have to be in power, or even have significant influence, other than on Wikipedia editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm beefing about JR's use of the word "unfortunately"--which in my view is itself quite unfortunate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

List

I haven't been able to find the list you refer to, which doubtless means that it has with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, but if you can find it, I'd be gappy to see how many of them have been added already, and how many more need to be considered next time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

0

Dear Rubin, Why are you reverting what I wrote about 0 zero? Does it have any errors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yohannesb: Does it have any sources (see WP:V) or relevance to the article? It is inaccurate to state that computers are based on "light", but that is really minor in respect to the overall inappropriateness of the section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(Arthur) Sorry for that broken edit here, was trying to move this section so I could reply, and spanned your edit (and somehow didn't get a conflict). (Yohannesb) What you wrote there is both rather inaccurate in several ways (incorrect generalization), unsourced, and not 'encyclopedic' in tone. For example, to say "Computers communicate with each other with lights" is only 'correct' in a very limited subset of cases (when they are using fiber optics), and to say that a camera is 'digital' because it 'understands' binary numbers is simply misleading... a camera does not 'understand' anything. The revert was quite appropriate. Revent^talk 20:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rubin, I've been a computer programmer over 20 years and now I work for [EPA]. I was trying to write the paragraph for lay-people to understand (such as our children). I don't know how you rejected the whole paragraph. Do you also disagree about the binary numbers that the computers represent?

Be that as it may, I will put references next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the paragraph is not about 0; it's possible that, if properly sourced, it could be added to another article, although I do not know what article that might be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FGM

Hi Arthur, it would have been better to leave Female genital mutilation and sexual function deleted. It would be nice eventually to have an article on it, but it would take a lot of research to get it right, and it needs to be right even as a stub. The version you restored was a MEDRS violation, so I've redirected it, but deletion would still be preferable. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Yohannesb has done so many things badly, that I thought it best to let him know that he really did have the correct process going this time. I had forgotten about WP:MEDRS, but, on Talk:female genital mutilation, he was told that creating a subarticle was the correct approach, and I agree with that. I'm afraid I really can't find a really good good edit of his since 2010, except possibly some to Zerai Deres ; and I am not going to be his mentor, even if he needs one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who foolishly suggested a daughter article in a moment of AGF, before I realized how strongly he was pushing one view. Can you re-delete it, or at least add full protection to the redirect? The article really can't stand in the form he has created it. It's too important an issue. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: OK, I'll protect the redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The copyright violation ought to be deleted, and there's no point in having a redirect. It would be better if you were to re-delete it. Not to mention that I'm now exposed to more personal attacks because of these requests. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I accept "delete copyvio" as a good reason, but the legitimate talk page discussion should be retained somewhere., even if it does result in some personal attacks on you. You should be used to personal attacks, as an admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a gender-gap learning experience here, Arthur. Just because I'm used to personal attacks, including sexist and quite threatening ones, doesn't mean they should continue, or that admins should do things to make them more likely to be seen and repeated. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear administrators, I've already apologized for saying <<if arguments are emotional, they luck rationality>> and referring it to Sarah (SV). Please let's put that behind us and talk about the burning issue at hand. Should we drop it or put it on? I'm a computer programmer with over 20 years experience. Therefore, I should be able to put together a new page. https://www.facebook.com/Barnabas.b.a That's me! P.S. I wish Wikipedia could link our identity with Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohannesb (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

2010s

Hello Arthur, just wondering what you'd regard as a 'notable' terrorist attack? I'd say the Charlie Hebdo shootings attracted pretty substantial global attention, possibly only coming second this decade to the Boston bombings. Thanks. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 19:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus it shouldn't be listed in 2015; how much less so in 2010s or in 21st century. I don't see a specific consensus at Talk:2010s, though, but you are welcome to bring up the matter there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)