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!
Dear Arthur Rubin, you may live in North America. Living there does not mean a Canadian is a Yank as an example. And neither do inhabitants of the British Isles see much affinity with Europe as such?
If there are better railways for each decade what would you suggest as the technology governed the thinking of each decade. What think ye? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)
- The UK is part of Europe. If you were to create a sub-sub-sub-sub section for the UK, and it were possible to generate distinctive headers, that might be an option. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- @IkbenFrank: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Now I have added the most significant details to the 1990s which shaped the UK. Perhaps you have an agenda to give a Tea Party perspective on the World in these decades?
Your comment at AE regarding Volunteer Marek
Regarding this unblock, and this comment, are you going to have more to say at WP:AE? It might help the closing admins decide what to do with the complaint. Need more information (or more admin commentary) as to possible bad editing regarding Warsaw Pact. Also, if a topic ban is needed, what is the best scope. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Agree it's a TBAN violation. I'm an involved admin; it seems better if involved non-admins or uninvolved admins brought it up on the appropriate boards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I don't understand why you reverted my edit of 84 (number). Your comment is "no indication of the number in the remaining article". If you mean the article Computus which I refer to, it says, "A completely distinct 84 - year cycle, the Insular latercus, was used in the British Isles. These old tables were used in Northumbria until 664, and by isolated monasteries as late as 931."
By the way, did you ever get my letter to you of July 19, 2014? (Or those of August 3 & 11, 2014?) I have just finished a paper on the work of Louis de Branges on proving the Riemann Hypothesis (Commentary on work of Louis de Branges). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Eric Kvaalen: That material is completely unsourced; the other 84-year table appears to have a source, but the notability is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's an interesting fact about the number 84. It's a multiple of the Julian Calendar period (28 years) and is also close enough to a lunar cycle that it was used for Easter tables. Of course this has nothing to do with the mathematical properties of 84. It's similar to pointing out that 365 is the number of days in a year (approximately). Do you object to mentioning this because it's not notable, or because you're not sure it's true (since the Computus article doesn't give a reference)? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)