User talk:Arthur Rubin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2019 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status[edit]

I'm not spending as much time here as I would like, with taking care of my wife, four three two one 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[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France[edit]

Hi. Including WP:AN/I in the talk page of WP:Wikiproject France rendered it unreadable IMO, so I took the liberty of substituting your use of a template by a simple link. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Comte0, Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That's ok, it was a quickly fixed mistake. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I finally replied, sorry for the delay. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

1992[edit]

Why do you keep removing Camille Kostek on the February list? Kostek not only gets more pageviews than Gaitan (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=Paulina_Gait%C3%A1n%7CCamille_Kostek), her page is also more developed (C-class) compared to Gaitan's stub. Kostek in on the cover of the iconic Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Also, every month has a female photo in it, save February with consecutive 3 males! A break from that, with a photo of Kostek, is good for formatting. Maxen Embry (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry: Camille has very limited notability. I do object to artificial diversity, but I particularly object to placing a non-notable female in place of a notable male. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Kostek is a 2019 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Model and first ever winner of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model Search. And Gaitan is a bit part actress who starred in a web TV series in Mexico. And it's not even about diversity, it's more aesthetic re the photos. /END Maxen Embry (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss on Talk:1992. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation[edit]

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson
29June2019 La Jolla Shores sunset-5.jpg
San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Woohooo[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Arthur Rubin. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mjs1991 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg


AR[edit]

How has the social scene here been the last 3 years. I've been away for awhile but the WMF blowup seems to have given me hope. 1YoudKnowIfUNEW (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The block solves the problem of how to answer this question. (It also indicates that "you" may not have been away for a while.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

2043 ad / 6000 years[edit]

Hello, Arthur -- Thank you for your email. Here is what I posted (that you removed as original research) --

(( 2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament. This may be readily computed by placing the construction of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) at 966 BC, a widely accepted date based on the work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. From 966 BC count back 2992 years to the first man, as given in the Old Testament record. (1656 Adam to the Flood, 427 to Abraham, 430 to the Exodus, 479 to 1 Kings 6:1.) This places the first man at 3958 BC. 6000 years forward takes one to 2043 AD. ))

I read the concern about "original research," and I wonder if there is a misunderstanding. The 966 bc date is source attributed, so I think you mean that the following years need references -- 1656, 427, 430, 479. I can readily supply published references for these, I was merely trying to keep things brief.

But in the section about "original research" it is mentioned that a source needs either to be cited for attribution -- or, a fact needs to be attribut-able. Each of these numbers is attribut-able from a variety of sources: McClintock and Strongs Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature 1867, Volume III, "Chronology." Or, Smith's Bible Dictionary, a classic commentary. Or, "The Time is at Hand," Charles Russell, 1889, Chapter Two, "Bible Chronology." (or many other places.) Here are relevant citations from the last source which is most conveniently at hand (a book whose circulation is listed on the internet as exceeding 4,000,000 copies).

1656 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," page 43.

427 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," page 44.

430 -- The Time is at Hand, 1889, Charles Russell, "Bible Chronology," pages 44-47.

(The 479 years is evident from 1 Kings 6:1 directly, as year 480 just beginning means a passage of 479 complete years to that point.)

None of these four periods is esoteric or unique or modern -- they are well known figures for Old Testament students that James Ussher of the 1600s, Isaac Newton of the 1600-1700s, and every researcher since then to modern times would be well familiar with. (Certainly nothing that is original with me.) Anyone involved with this area would recognize these figures as wholly generic and widely recognized staples in this field.

The only one of these in any sense modern is the date 966 bc, which is attributed to Edwin Thiele of the last century (whose work in this field is widely known and respected, it holds the first place, strongly endorsed by contemporary scholars also, such as Kenneth Kitchen of England.)

(The various sources mentioned do not merely reflect the opinions of some one particular Christian fellowship, they are widely and generally used.)

Regarding the 6000th year -- this is not a trivial observation. From pre-Christian Jewish times, through Christian times, the meaning of the close of 6000 years in both Jewish and Christian thought has been well expressed and well studied, as introducing a much revered 7th Millennium. The study of this has drawn luminaries such as Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, and very many since then.

This area lay at the root of early Christian expectations -- See the article "Millennium" in McClintock and Strongs, Volume 6, pages 264 and forward -- and is still very much part of thinking in many branches of Christianity, to a lesser extent also in Jewish thought. (Whereas the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th millennial periods are not.) Thus the close of 6000 years, beginning the Seventh Millennium, is more than a passing curiosity for the great many who have historically, and currently, engaged in the study of this subject.

Granted, this interest would be specific to cultures with roots in Judeo-Christian thinking. But that includes quite a number -- suggesting it is worthy of notice.

Please advise me. I would be glad to edit as necessary. However, perhaps in light of the above, the blurb might stand as is. Here it follows again --

(( 2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament. This may be readily computed by placing the construction of Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) at 966 BC, a widely accepted date based on the work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. From 966 BC count back 2992 years to the first man, as given in the Old Testament record. (1656 Adam to the Flood, 427 to Abraham, 430 to the Exodus, 479 to 1 Kings 6:1.) This places the first man at 3958 BC. 6000 years forward takes one to 2043 AD. ))

DavRice (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice

@DavRice: See, for example "our" article Chronology of the Bible. The most famous attributed chronology is the Ussher chronology, setting the creation of the world on October 23, 4004 BC (proleptic Julian calendar). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There were millennialists in AD 1000, AD 1033, AD 2000, AH 1000, and, contrary to your assertion, 5000 AM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Arthur -- Yes, I am aware of the Ussher article. Note that his date for creation was 4004 bc, and his date for the temple was 1012 bc. That is 2992 years. That is the same sum as used in my post -- 1656, 427, 430, 479 -- 2992 years. The difference is that Ussher did not have access to the date for Solomon's Temple in 1 Kings 6:1. Now we do, since the well respected work of Edwin Thiele in the mid 20th century. Thus the year ending 6000 years -- using the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament -- is 2043 ad. It seems well worth a notice.

(( There were millennialists in AD 1000, 1033, 2000, AH 1000 ... )) ---- Perhaps some misunderstanding here. My comment was that the end of 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 years, from the beginning, were not points of interest -- but the end of 6000 years from the beginning has been of interest.

Yes, there have been millennialists for the past 2000 years seeking a solution to this point. Some of them thought that the key figure of 6000 years from the beginning would bring them to 1000 AD, and other possibilities. They used something like an Egyptian long chronology, using the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which expands many of the numbers, and other variations. Thus my mention, "according to the Hebrew Old Testament." If we use that count -- and affix it to the now widely accepted date of Edwin Thiele (966 bc, 1 Kings 6:1) -- then we have the end of 6000 years in the year 2043 ad.

As you observe, this question has been of interest for some centuries now. Now that we have a good fix on the year 966 bc for Solomon's Temple, the result yields 2043 ad for the close of 6000 years. This result, so long of interest to so many, seems a good point to at least observe in the list of things due in 2043. Is that agreeable?

DavRice (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice

@DavRice:
  1. Do you want your IP6 (starting with 2600:....) redacted from the logs? (If so, eMail me or User:Oversight to request the IP/user and one revision of this talk page be WP:OVERSIGHTed or WP:REVDELed.)
  2. We (Wikipedia) operate from sources. If you can find a single reliable source which settles on 2043 AD being 6000 AM (allowing for calendar drift), rejects the other chronologies, and says why it is significant to Christianity, I would reluctantly agree that some mention should be included in 2043. Otherwise, try to reach consensus in the article Chronology of the Bible first. As this is controversial, please start by discussing what changes you would like to see in that article on its talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(( Do you want your IP6 (starting with 2600:....) redacted from the logs? )) ---- Yes, please. Thank you for asking.

(( We (Wikipedia) operate from sources. )) ---- ok -- but I endeavored to supply ample sources. McClintock and Strong's, Smiths's Bible Dictionary, The Time is at Hand (4 million circulation), Ussher's Chronology -- that support 2992 years from Adam to Solomon's Temple, and each of these is a long standing reference work. The only "new" piece is from 70 years ago -- Edwin Thiele's work, "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings," which is the reference work on the date 966 bc. Even the NIV study bible years ago picked up on this and includes this date in their footnote on 1 Kings 6:1. From there it is simple addition.

I myself have written two books on the subject, "The Stream of Time," and "The Approaching End of the Harvest," the first one in 2002, the latter in 2016. Both are available on the internet in PDF form. You can find these at "www.2043ad.com" -- a website up for several years now. (Button "6000 Years.")

(( If you can find a single reliable source which settles on 2043 AD being 6000 AM (allowing for calendar drift), rejects the other chronologies, and says why it is significant to Christianity, I would reluctantly agree that some mention should be included in 2043. )) ---- The two books mentioned above are the best on this. I have studied this area for more than 50 years. But these books, though going into intricate detail on the Venus Tablets of Ammizadugua, the Lunar Dates of the 12th Dynasty of Egypt, and additional confirmations for 966 bc drawn from the studies of Rodger Young -- still use as their foundation the long standing and oft published facts about the testimony of the Hebrew Old Testament -- namely the 2992 years to Solomon's Temple.

All we are adding to this is the link to the now widely accepted work of Edwin Thiele -- 966 bc. (And no, I am not of the fellowship he belonged to and never knew him -- my only letter to him years ago reached his publisher just after his passing.)

2600:8801:8305:6400:5930:1E17:27B0:5D9B (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC) David Rice