User talk:Arthur Rubin
|Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.||
I'm not spending as much time here as I would like, with taking care of my wife,
four three cats, and looking for paying work. If I don't respond to a problem, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed it.
TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Books and Bytes - Issue 11
Thank you for your note. I'm an educator researching famous discoveries and events that have impacted our understanding of different regions of the world. Discoveries are significant events, and Wikipedia is full of them! When material discoveries occur that prove or disprove theories or that dramatically increase the scientific body of knowledge, they should be remembered and celebrated.
When Sue O'Connor discovered evidence of human remains in Jerimalai cave on 12/22/2006, it provided the first tangible evidence to substantiate the theory that mankind immigrated to Australia through South-east Asia. It was also the first of many important finds in the caves of that region that are well-documented on Wikipedia. That discovery was an event that changed our understanding of the history and origins of modern human life in Australia.
The mummy disovered in Taizhou, China on 3/1/2011 is no less significant - the 700-yr-old mummy was the best-preserved find from the Ming Dynasty in modern archaeology. The corpse gives an incredible glimpse into the lives of the ruling class, the fabrics they used, their mummifying technology, and the funeral rituals and customs they followed in a bygone era. The find was an event - especially to the road workers who stumbled upon the tomb by accident.
I believe that these are worthy of listing in Wikipedia because they are factual, historical events that have dramatically increased our body of scientific knowledge.
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot
Hi Arthur, I note from your LinkedIn profile that you have a background in aerospace, and there is a page that might benefit from your experience. The article about the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a problematic one, and is not helping the overall reputation of Wikipedia.
It seems that anytime a journalist is writing about an air disaster (911 WTC, MH370, MH17, Germanwings, etc.), they end up using that page for background information about a conspiracy by 'shadowy forces' to remotely 'take control' of aircraft, and fly them at will, leaving the flight crew helpless to do anything.
From what I can tell, there are a number of patents relating to this type of technology, but I have not seen any indication (e.g. in aviation trade journals) that anyone has ever tried to implement such technology in a commercial airliner. It would require extensive certification procedures, and any unusual equipment would be very obvious when installed in the avionics bay. Part of the conspiracy narrative is that it has been 'secretly' installed as a set of 'sub protocols' in existing equipment. However, there are many technologically literate pilots flying commercial aircraft, and it seems a little unlikely that these sub protocols would go undetected. The conspiracy also seems to focus on Boeing, but doesn't take into account that there are planes in commercial service from many other manufacturers e.g. Airbus, Embraer, McDonnell Douglas, Sukhoi, etc.
I have recently done some work on the page, so that each sentence has at least one citation, however, it's a stub, and this has been just an attempt make it coherent. I have deleted some earlier material that used raw patent data as sources (I think patent applications/grants are not considered reliable?), to support the idea that there was a 'patent trail' implicating certain manufacturers.
There is also another almost identical page (Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot), however this is also a stub, and does not seem to attract the conspiracy theorists, even though it was Boeing that was granted a relevant patent in 1996. M Stone (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
My "past" comments
- @BullRangifer: I was alluding to the Arbcom findings, which seemed (to me) to say that you were argumentative on talk pages, but the proposed findings that you had made questionable article edits did not pass. In any case, I can't see any rational reading of SV's and SG's comments which do not imply that Arbcom found that you had done something wrong, even if I cannot remember what it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I was cautioned, but since most of the charges made up by my opponent were false, there was no other sanction. Keep in mind that all the "findings" were charges made before any investigation or evidence had been presented. That's totally wrong. I had not "added" QW links as charged. A later amendment of that decision also removed the accusation that QW was unreliable, which vindicated both myself and QW.
- My mild incivility was in response to the events surrounding the Arbcom itself. That was true enough. When someone says blatantly libelous things, one responds with strong denials. That was considered uncivil of me, but nothing happened to my accuser. Only at the end was she found to be wrong and banned.
- My accusers now keep forgetting that I was the winner in that Arbcom, not the loser. They stop at the accusations, and don't mention that investigation showed the charges to be false, except for the incivility charge. Incivility isn't good, but it's not a capital offense. I learned my lesson.
- I still took the cautions to heart and have been more careful. Wikipedia has changed a lot since then, I have gotten older and more patient, and now you'd be hard put to find me worse than any other respected editor, and better than some admins when it comes to incivility. I may get impatient, but usually in response to false statements about myself. We are all human here.
- If only perfect people can edit here, count me out, but let my accuser look in the mirror before they start casting stones. My opposers make broad and unspecific accusations without any evidence. If they were forced to provide diffs, they'd have a hard time making a case worth anything other than a mild caution. But what about their personal attacks, incivility, baiting, and blatant failures to AGF toward me? No one warns them. Right now an editor is making a whole lot of noise and implying that I'm misusing QW, just because I defend it against false charges. I haven't added any QW links for ages, probably 3-4 years ago. (Even at the time of the Arbcom I was pretty careful. I never spammed it, and I even removed it when it was used inappropriately.) She doesn't know what she's talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)