# User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007

Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 | Archive 2008

## What?

You told Ilena that silicone is safer than saline? wow. You perhaps need to read a 2006 study on proteins found on implants (that were in the body over time) that are known to cause local immune reaction and the authors state that more research needs to be done to determine if there is any long term systemic reaction. The 'wealth' of studies done are still relatively short. The FDA has itself stated there is insufficient data on any one implant to determine rupture rate.. The scientists are again suggesting that it is still unknown what the long term effects are of rupture. That is one reason why the FDA recommends periodic MRIS after implantation, to detect rupture. There seems to be no clear evidence of systemic illness but this is by far not a given (especially with rupture, for which there is scant data). Where you got the idea that silicone is safer than saline is um, well, not very scientific.Jance 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are few, if any studies, about the safety of saline implants, and the (probably lesser) effects of the (more common) leaks. I think I did see a meta-study which purported to show that saline implants had fewer side-effects than silicone. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there are few studies on saline. Part of the problem is the history of all implants. And the litigation. I just saw that you said here that saline had fewer side effects than silicone. That is true. Jance 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

## Paul Thompson RS

Please see and address the notes on the Talk page? What of the listed sources are not RS and why? Thanks! Please address there. Moscatanix 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

## Article deleteion

How do I get an article deleted then?--Beguiled 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, before I knew you were asking me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

## Moving page

Dear Artur,

I am sorry, I do not understand your message on my talk page. What should I do? Where is the problem?

"An example of what you should not be doing: Creating articles in the main name space which are redacted archives of your talk page. Please move Archive-Gadomski to a subpage of your talk page AT ONCE. I'd do it, except that I don't know where you want want it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

Is the problem with the name of the page? - It can be changed, for example , as Adam M. Gadomski/Archive 2006, BUT I do not know exactly how to do it.

Thanks in anticipation of your help.

Sincerely

gadomski_a (a)casaccia.enea.it --192.107.77.3 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to be logged in order to move a page. When you are, and if your account is sufficiently aged (I don't think there's an edit count requirement), and you go to the page, there's a move tab at the top. For instance, when editing this page I see tabs
• user page
• discussion
• +
• history
• unprotect
• delete
• move
• unwatch

When editing the page in question, you would probably see (I don't have a non-admin account to check)

• article
• discussion
• history
• move
• watch (or unwatch, depending on whether you are presently watching the page)

Click the move tab, and follow the instructions. The new name should be something like User talk:Adam M. Gadomski/Archive 2006, but both "User talk" and your name are important. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

## F.Y.I.

Archiving is part of the deal between us so that a frank and free debate can occur between disinterested parties on thier own accord and i think your use of bold type is unecessary. Please can you create the correct archive page then as you saem to know how to.--Lucy-marie 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the deal located? I think perhaps "hiding" the section may be more appropriate than archiving; but I'll archive that section alone for you. I'll come back later today to re-add my comment, if still appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The deal is located in the below section from the talk page:
Look you and i are never going to agree and i think you and I should step back and let other people decide on the wording as we are just going to keep on butting heads. Also, please can neither of us influence the views of others by talking to them about this issue through e-mails or by using firends or on talk pages or by posting any more comments on this talk page. You and I have both had fierce arguments over this and I think we shoud let other decide before we get what happened previously happening agian. I think it is the best way for us to get a fair and balanced result.
(Lucy-marie - You didn't sign above). It's precisley becasue I want to let others decide that I started this Request for Comments strand in the first place. No, we are never going to agree, quite simply because you are wrong as others here have pointed out, as evidence I have presented to you has shown and as the evidence even you presented shows. Remember, your original assertion was that there is no such word as 'persons' in English (whether British, American, Australian, whatever doesn't matter). That part is now resolved - the word is perfectly valid in British English (and others). I would also point out that you subverted the RfC process by declaring it closed, blanking a page and creating two new ones, which I nominated for deletion and other users speedied. I have been more than happy to let others decide, but given the weight of evidence and opinions already expressed here and in the deletion pages, is there any point in prolonging it? Is it time that you accepted that you have learned something and that the Ebglish language is a wondeful thing that never cease to amaze us? Incidentally, I have just come back from the Co-op where the sign next to the bacon slicer reads: "Persons under the age of 18 may not operate this machine." Emeraude 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes i do think we should prolong this so we can see exactly what the disinterested views of other users are and i am not sure what the Ebglish language is i think you meant English language. I'm sorry i forgot to sign above and don't know how to do the unsigned thigey. So i think this page should be archived and a fresh discussion should be initated excluding the pair of us. this would satisfy me and would settle the argument as i would wholy accept the outcome. I also refer that we should not contact anybody on this issue at all until the RFC is completed and fully implmented. So can you agree to my proposal? Also I do not think either of us should close the rfc either.--Lucy-marie 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its a lot to read but its all intertwined.--Lucy-marie 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

## Right arrow?

I was reading some of your comments on an article we have both been editing and...I saw the notation of a right arrow which I presumed meant "Imply" and I thought "oh yea that's the mathmetician" and then I wondered how to do that on WIkipedia. Can you help? Thank you!Jance 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Which right arrow?
In math formulas, it's \rightarrow (or \Rightarrow for a double arrow).
With the standard skin, when editing a file, there's a line (below Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It Will be delete.) which reads:
 Insert: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · §  Sign your name: ~~~~


For the arrow in text mode, click on (or copy/paste) that arrow. Alternative forms involve HTML or Unicode arrows, but this one is simpler. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

## Anderson

Hi, you reverted my edit without giving any reason. I guess you are aware of exponentiation#Zero to the zero power, or the broad consensus in the mathematical community that 00 = 1, at least when only natural numbers are considered. I think this should be made clear in the article, since the usual arguments in favour of 00 = 1 show the problems with Anderson's claim that "transreal arithmetic is total": in standard arithmetic, an identity like ${\displaystyle (a+b)^{n}=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{n \choose k}a^{k}b^{n-k}}$ is valid for arbitrary ${\displaystyle a,b,n}$; if 00 is left undefined, the situation can be salvaged by adding "whenever both sides are defined". In Anderson's case, one needs to modify this to "whenever both sides are not equal to Φ" or something like that, showing that universal validity of identities must be sacrificed in order to achieve the totality of arithmetical operations. Of course, all of this is original research for WP purposes, but the current exposition is misleading. IMO the entire section should be removed, as was suggested on the talk page.--80.136.148.67 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

00 = 1 when the exponent is considered over the integers, but is normally considered undefined if the exponent is considered over the reals. It's not appropriate in the context of Anderson or transreals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an outdated point of view, especially in the cs community, cf. Knuth's Two notes on notation or things like the C++ standard.--80.136.176.202 08:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
He claims it's a mathematical concept, and exponentiation#Zero to the zero power makes it clear that 00 is undefined in the reals. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, just that calculus people are more likely to leave 00 undefined. Anderson himself claims that division by zero is a computing problem, and the article focuses on the comparison with IEEE arithmetic. That's why the cs point of view has to be taken into account. From a purely mathematical view, he defines some kind of algebraic structure, and algebraists know that a0=1 for just any a, real or whatever. Of course, he tries to do analysis, but I cannot take these attempts seriously. As I said before: IMNSHO this discussion is already more than this theory deserves.--80.136.176.202 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

## AFD

I was wondering if you can close an AFD? SetofFive 05:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you have in mind? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

## 21st–31st century

Why did you revert my perfectly accurate information additions for those centuries? Not only is the capitalization of "calendar" in "Gregorian calendar" inaccurate, but my additions are 100% correct and needed to amplify understanding of what era these centuries are in. If you don't respond with reasonable excuses, I will re-revert. — RunningAway 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not accurate, and your incorrect use of AD adds new bias in the AD/CE dispute. I'll revert back once, unless you can explain why AD is appropriate rather than CE. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, how are they not accurate? Secondly, this is exactly what was added: "[[anno Domini]] ([[common era|common]]) era''", which identifies both the AD and CE calendar era, I don't see why you're assuming this is biased toward AD..?. — RunningAway 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

## Title Change

Greetings. The article of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, I was totally unaware that it is not acceptable to intersperse comments in talk pages. Thanks you for setting me straight, I thought QG was being unreasonable, but I see I was wrong. I will try to correct that. --Dematt 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

## FYI

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you, as an admin, make sure I conduct things properly on my talk page. I have listed a few conditions which I believe are a good start. Even though Ilena doesn't seem to care to treat me fairly, I want to treat her fairly by giving her an opportunity to document her serious charges and vicious personal attacks, which haven't yet gotten her (or User:Steth, who is every bit as vicious) indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, as such attacks would have for myself or any other editor who made them. If I don't treat her fairly, please correct me immediately! -- Fyslee 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if an uninvolved admin would comment. I do have previous history with Ilena on Usenet. I don't think it's affecting my judgement, but it would be best if I stayed out of this as an admin. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposition of deletion of the article "ARTHUR" is, from my point of view, rather drastic. It is an article about a military vehichle, it is not translated from swedish by a german or dutch (but written by a Swede) and "bad grammar" is hardly a reason to delete a semi-serious article. The reason it does'nt have any english references is mainly because there are no english references. And military equipment that is rather nationally unique is not very publicly accounted for either. If you think it has bad grammar, maybe you should correct it, instead of deleting it?

Patrik. (5102 Back) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5102 Back (talkcontribs) 20:58, January 17, 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the comments about "translation"; it's just that the grammar and word formation used is more German/Dutch than English. English normally doesn't run multiple words together to produce complicated concepts, but provides hyphenation. However, the reason I'm upset with that is that I can't figure out what you're saying.
Also, remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. In other words, the article needs references for anything not obvious; and what may be obvious to you as a (former?) member of the Swedish military may not be obvious to me. It is permitted for references to be in a foreign language if no English reference is available, but references there must be.
Perhaps you would do better writing the article in the Swedish Wikipedia first, and then add the link here. However, I'll withdraw the proposed deletion — for the moment — provided that you work on the encyclopedic tone of the article as well as locating references. (The references do not have to be accessible online. Swedish newspaper articles or articles in the land equivalent of Jane's Fighting Ships would be quite acceptable.) If I removed everything which is unreferenced, as I should, there wouldn't be enough left to construct an article.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

## ICR

So do you wish to discuss your revert? I didn't see anything in the talk page. 66.75.8.138 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything supporting your version, either. Do you wish to discuss your reverts? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes! I made good faith attempts to edit the article. Patriot made a large number of additions and alterations (16 straight) from January 6th to the 8th. I made what I felt were hard thought edits and put in time and effort. Many of those alterations and additions did not deal with changes that Patriot made. I didn't just revert his edits, but worked with what he had. When he got upset he chose to blanketly revert every change I made, without comment. That's uncalled for. It's hard to reach any concensus when that occurs and I somehow doubt that is Wikipedia policy. 66.75.8.138 02:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
So do you wish to discuss your badgering? FeloniousMonk 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To whom was that directed? "66", Patriot, or me? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 21

Why are you arguing for the revival of a troll's attack on a Wikipedia user? Jkelly 09:19, January 21, 2007

He may be a troll, but I don't see an actual attack. It's not easy to read deleted versions, so I may have missed something. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## You're insight is needed

As someone who would know firsthand, would you mind dropping by Haldane's dilemma and making sure it's status within the scientific community is accurately represented. I'm afraid I'd be talking out of school to go much further than I already have. FeloniousMonk 05:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, sometime this weekend. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe not this weekend, and I may not be the right person, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## Talk:Uncountable set

As our expert on the axiom of choice and its negation, I would like you to please comment on a disagreement which I am having with CMummert (talk · contribs) about Uncountable set. When ~AC, does "uncountable" mean ${\displaystyle \kappa >\aleph _{0}}$ or ${\displaystyle \kappa \nleq \aleph _{0}}$? I prefer the former and he wants the latter. JRSpriggs 10:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Commented on article talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. CMummert · talk 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I, also, thank you for your quick response. JRSpriggs 09:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

## help

help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow , is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Thanks

Senatorto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senatorto (talkcontribs) 16:16, January 21, 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## Disjunction

Hello there. I've seen your name around the 9/11 articles on occasion, where you seem to be both a voice of sanity and scrupulously fair, so I hope you will help out here. The article on exclusive disjunction was recently moved to the title exclusive or' after a debate which I unfortunately missed, the main argument for which was predicated on the fact that Google turns up more hits for exclusive or' (which is ambiguous anyway — see my comments on the talk page [1]). I moved the article back to its proper name, since I think that calling it exclusive or' is akin to calling the article on multiplication timesing' or the article on addition plussing'. I would appreciate it if you could cast a glance over the situation and tell me if I am being unreasonable — I just don't think mathematical terminology is best decided upon by the consensus of a dozen Wikipedia editors who may or may not actually know what they are talking about [2]. Thanks awfully. Rosenkreuz 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On another "disjunction", my followup to your questions.--I'clast 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

## Furstenberg

Look who got a Wolf Prize for Mathematics. Charles Matthews 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

## grammer

Yours was definitely better, thanks! --Dematt 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

## Kauffman

Arthur, I see the two citations related to Dr. Kauffman. I also see that you are defending the "diminished" version of the paragraph that he is referenced in. Am I missing something. His credentials look pretty good to me, but I'm thinking that you have knowledge from previous discussions that I am not privy to. Is he competition to Barrett? I see he notes that he fights fraud in "mainstream medicine". Are they rivals? --Dematt 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I would prefer the diminished version — he is the only critic who provides a "formal" web site review, but I feel the longer version gives Kauffman's views too much credit. In any case, we need to calm down while the 3RRs are straightened out....
I'm really not sure what Kauffman's motivation for the article is. (I don't see a direct reference to Kauffman fighting fraud, but I don't have a copy of his book.) I suspect that Barrett may praise some aspects of "mainstream medicine" which are opposed by what he (Barrett) sees as quacks, which are among the ones that Kauffman thinks are, themselves, quackery or fraud on the part of "mainstream" practitioners. But I really don't know. Gigabutterfly's note that he (Kauffman) doesn't find any studies which support Barrett's conclusions suggests that Kauffman is "cherry-picking" the studies, rather than that Barrett is full of censored. I'm almost certain there's some history between them personally, or one has attacked the pet project of the other.
You may have noticed I filed 3RR reports against both Gigabutterfly and Levine2112. (I'd like to goad SA into a 3RR violation, but that would be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not interested in revert wars. That's pretty much why I backed out. I am interested in trying to calm things down on this article and the other articles that Fyslee and llena are a part. I would miss either of them. There was a time that the Chiropractic article was this bad, but we were able to reach consensus by using NPOV and V and RS information. You were an important part of that and I do remember you were a solid editor that resisted POV editing. This is the source that is cited on the QW page that says he is fights mainstream medicine fraud. To me, that makes him a pretty reliable source about the same stuff Barrett does. His credentials look pretty good to me, better than Barretts for sure. If anyone is in a position to make the assessment, he would be the one, don't you think? I am not into the long versions. I personally think that a few sentences are all that is necessary to make a point. But I am open to the fact that I may not have all the information that you and others have been privy to. --Dematt 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if competition is the right word. I had never heard of Kauffman before his mention here. From his track record (at least what's been mentioned here -- JSE, book, etc. - I suspect his version of "exposing fraud in mainstream medicine" is akin to the type we find from Bolen, Mercola, Null, Icke, Rense, Martini, Townsend Letter, etc.. IOW outright enmity to the whole system (and using the enmity they create to promote and sell unproven methods), rather than concentrating on exposing specific proven cases of pharmaceutical industry abuses, serious malpractice, criminal fraud by MDs, crooked dentists, (incompetence & iatrogen problems aren't fraud, so I don't include them), etc.. Those areas are already covered pretty well by law agencies, many consumer groups, most medical societies and their journals, all alternative medicine groups, etc.. Barrett has chosen to concentrate on a niche that has been ignored and is unrelated to those matters, leaving them to those who are already doing it. Like I said at the start, I don't know much about him. I haven't read his book or seen other examples of his actual criticisms, so I could be misjudging him by his use of the language typical of anti-medical and anti-science groups. If anyone can supply some links here to more of his stuff I'd appreciate it. That will help us determine if he's a real medical fraud buster, or just another quack booster using anti-medical rhetoric. -- Fyslee 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's kinda what I'm looking for, too. But we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions that he must be a quack because he is criticizing a quackbuster. His credentials are at least as good, if not better than Barrett's when it comes to research and pharmaceuticals. He does back up his arguments with research, both primary and peer reviewed. But it is not whether he is right or wrong in their disagreement on the eight subjects that he reviewed, it's that he noted that Barrett had not cited these same sources (or anything similar) when making his own recommendations for proper diet, etc. IOWs, his commentary was basically saying Quackwatch was not going about it in a scientific way either - the pot is calling the kettle black. Therefore it, too was undependable. --Dematt 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, critics of quackbusters aren't automatically quacks. (There are exceptions.....;-) There are certainly legitimate criticisms that aren't designed to be, or used as, straw man or ad hominem attacks to divert attention from unethical practices and advertising. It's hard for me to really evaluate Kauffman because I don't have any of his stuff, and I have plenty of other things that interest me more, but if anyone will post something here, I'll try to check it out. I suspect your last couple sentences are closer to the truth. -- Fyslee 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

## 3rr

I think your nomination for my 3RR on the admin was a bit premature. The diffs which you provide don't show any violation. My fear is that despite this, I will get blocked just for being nominated in the middle of this debacle. Please check my edits and my discussion on the Quackwatch talk page. I was being judicious and cooperative, and offering constructive advice for the newbie (and I belive showed incredible patience and restraint). I urge you to un-nominate me (i.e. delete your entry on the 3RR admin noticeboard). Thanks. Levine2112 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

## Prime numbers

Hi Arthur

I note you removed my edits within a few seconds:

a prime number (often just called a prime) is a natural number that has exactly two divisors - the number itself, and 1. 3, 5 and 7 are prime numbers, but 9 is not (it has three divisors - 1, 3 and 9). Nor is 1 a prime number, because it has just one divisor (1).
Numbers with more than two divisors are called composite. The number 1 is the only counting number that is neither prime nor composite.

I think you have changed it from something which is generally accessible to something which only mathematicians may appreciate - I feel a lot of Wikipedia suffers from this - it clearly has too many mathematicians involved! (I too am one, but not a 'notable' one - I am more concerned about access to the subject: most people learn more from a few well-chosen examples than from a rigorous definition. (The current version relies heavily upon natural numbers, but if you look at that you find that Wikipedia doesn;t know whether zero is included or not .....)

Regards

Johnbibby 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

## Wet willy as a school prank

I'm rather perplexed by your insistence on deleting Wet Willy from the school pranks article. Google gives me 87,500 hits for the phrase. Were this a rarity or a neologism, I could understand your objection; but this is not the case. Either way, the same treatment should be given to the article Wet Willie as to the section of the school pranks article, since they contain the same claim. Matt Gies 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. There are no references there, either, so I redirected it to the band. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You're still not being thorough in your (still perplexing) attempt to nullify the existence of the wet willy. The phrase still redirects to the very same school pranks article where you first deleted the (accurate) description of the act, where a [citation needed] would probably have been much more appropriate. Matt Gies 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't summarily delete the redirect, and I don't have time for the WP:RfD process at the moment. Maybe next week. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

## 3rr

You're reverting too much. See [3] which has not yet been determined William M. Connolley 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody changed the werdnabot template, but on my browser, the text from that template is still overlapping the archive template. I'm going to enclose the two in a table with one row and two columns, which fixes it as far as I can tell. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

## Sashato

Sorry, it's problem with sr: wikipedia, we have articles about centurys and thay are linked to english articles like 42nd century, and this page is redirect on english Wikipedia, i will try to remove all mistakes on sr: wiki buy bot too. Thank you about noting me for this. --SasaStefanovic 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

## Pfeiffer Treatment Center

Contrary to what you posted in your edit comments, not all of the links were "already referenced in the article." Please undo this change for which there was no justification!--Alterrabe 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Two were there. I'm moving the remaining one to a cite. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

## BvR template

Arthur, I saw you edited the template on BvR. Don't you think the bottom template should also say that Barrett edits here, too? --Dematt 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, I think. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You're good! Thanks! --Dematt 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

## Your changes to Hair Mineral Analysis

• I would be interested to know why you consider my mention of the principles of epistemology to be a sign of bias? I was merely pointing out that the articles that are quoted against hair tests are do not rule out that hair analysis may be clinically useful, but rather show that as they are done today, there are serious flaws. To point out that something is neither completely disproven nor completely proven is not bias to my mind, but rather to explain how the scientific process works, and what the controversies about it are. Why did you remove this?
• I would also like to know why you deem my mentioning that hair analysis could potentially obviate the necessity of a lumbar puncture to be "unsourced" or "biased." The Multiple Sclerosis page in wikipedia, to which I linked, mentions that lumbar punctures are sometimes necessary to diagnose MS. What is "unsourced" or "biased" about this suggestion?
• Why is my writing that there are not one but three debates swirling about hair analysis in alternative medicine "unsourced" or "biased?" It essentially is exactly what Barratt says!
• Why is writing that hair analysis has suffered from benign neglect a sign of "bias" or an "unsourced statement." If I source a 1978 article showing that there is clear data that it could be of use in diagnosing MS, and nothing has been done in the next 28 years, I cannot see how you take issue with this claim. Is it not evident from the article itself that these discoveries have been neglected for 28 years? Could you please explain me your reasoning?

--Alterrabe 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Your use of the "principles of epistemology" involves original research. The principles, themselves, could probably be quoted in the article, but their relevance would need to be establed. In other words, unless you can find a WP:RS that hair analysis could be useful (which, as you note in one of the sections I deleted, doesn't actually exist at the moment), the use is inappropriate.
• Your mentioned that "mentioning that hair analysis could potentially obviate the necessity of a lumbar puncture" is your synthesis of the information in the article. Leave the facts in immediate proximity (hair analysis may be used for diagnosis, and that "conventional" diagnosis requires surgery (with source)), and let the readers decide for themselves.
• I may have been wrong about the "three debates". It's calling it a "summary" that I find questionable. If it can be rewritten to remove that word without changing the meaning of the paragraph, go ahead.
• That "hair analysis has suffered from benign neglect" is a conclusion. Unless you can provide a WP:RS to that effect, it shouldn't be in the article. My initial reasoning (calling it bias) was based on the lack of supporting information in the article, but, even if it were, there, it would still be WP:OR.
The edits I reverted had the tone of an academic paper. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In detail, I'm no longer sure why I completely removed

While there are studies that suggest that hair analysis could be useful in clinical practice as a diagnostic tool,[1], [2] to this day there are no medical consensus about the wisdom and prudence of using hair mineral tests in clinical practice.

"strong, if not compelling" needs to be removed; "unaniomous beliefs" should be replaced by "medical concesnsus", and the last sentence is yet another conclusion. Never mind, I found why I removed it. I said it shouldn't be in the "background" section. Looking closely, it just introduces the two clincal studies mentioned below. Perhaps a sentence following those studies adding a summary might be appropriate, but if you cannot find a source for that, it may not be approriate, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strenuously disagree with your assertion that including the principles of epistemology in the article is "original research." Epistemology is the logical theory or taxonomy of knowledge, and every bit as rigorously logical as math. The non-mainstream use of hair tests is an area in which there is as yet, no clarity on their use; thus it is entirely relevant and appropriate to explain to the reader the principles of epistemology so that he or she can better understand the issues at hand.
• The basic rules of epistemology are clearly defined, and logically consistent. To explain the epistemology of our knowledge on the use hair tests in alternative medicine and medical research is no more to conduct original research than is to rewrite 10^0.5 as SQRT(10), or to compare two birthdates, and write that one person was born before the other. To assert that this is a conclusion or original research would be as far-fetched as to claim that my writing that the Ryan study is now 28 years old is a "conclusion" or "original research," because the Ryan study doesn't explicitly say that it is 28 years old.
• To explain the epistemology of hair test use is simply to perform a logical operation on the data. Your assertion that the onus is on me to supply a WP:RS that hair analysis could be useful, is to insist that the absence of proof is proof of absence. This is either faulty logic, or the expression of a (false) POV. Not even Barratt argues that there is proof of absence, but rather points to an absence of proof. To take logic to its extreme: until it is conclusively proven that there can be no further uses for hair analysis as a diagnostic aid, we have to assume that it is possible that there are some. I am intent on reentering this line of thought into the HA article. Are you going to want to ask for arbitration on this?
• Benign neglect is a strong, but, I think accurate description of the state of affairs. Would you agree that writing "That even though there are research findings of significant discrepancies between the hair of those with some ailments and healthy individuals, that suggest that hair analysis could have further diagnostic uses, little if any progress was made in a twenty-three year span in further elucidating their significance and introducing them into clinical practice?" This is not original research, but rather comparing Barratt and Seidel, who write that it is useless in clinical practice, to Ryan and Holmes, who proved otherwise. Could our POVs be affecting our judgments?
• I do not agree with your assertion that my "synthesis" of the facts is uncalled for. We know that that MS is an illness. We know that illnesses are determined by diagnosis, and we know that illnesses are diagnosed by finding clinical markers that differentiate them from healthy states. Obviously, this means that this clinical marker could play a role. Now we don't know whether this definitely can be used to diagnose MS, but we do know darn well that it could possibly be used to diagnose MS, and, by definition, this article is precisely about what is not already well-established and universally accepted in regards to hair tests. As such, my "synthesis" is legitimate, even the best way to underscore the uncertainties that surround the use of hair test in alternative medicine. Do you have any comments?--Alterrabe 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to revise and extend my remarks. I meant mediation, and wrote arbitration. My profuse apologies.--Alterrabe 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept mediation, if we can't reach an equitable agreement, provided we can agree on the scope. (The mediation in re Barrett v. Rosenthal, which, as you can earlier in my talk page, went to arbitrartion, failed because the participants couldn't agree on the scope.) I feel that your version of the article (just before my trim) provides undue weight toward hair mineral analysis being an acceptable medical practice, even if the WP:OR concerns are unjustified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not claim that hair mineral analysis is an accepted medical technique. I believe however, that it is conceivable that it will some day be an accepted medical technique. Although I don't address this in the article, I personally believe that it is very likely that medicine will eventually adopt hair mineral analysis for further diagnostic work. Before we start discussing the scope of mediation and all that, I'd ask that you read the page as I just left it; you'll see where I am coming from. If you want to make improvements feel free.--Alterrabe 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

## Slipped disc

When will this get settled? - Fyslee 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. WP:AfDs normally last 5-7 days. Although I don't fully agree with the logic, Wikipedia concensus seems to be that it would only be deleted before replacing the redirect if it contains clearly incorrect information, and that the redirect would only be protected if its reverted after the AfD finds that the redirect should be there. If the result of the AfD is "redirect", I'll watch it, and protect if necessary. (As a participating admin, I may not close the AfD, but I feel that I can enforce protection if agreed to by the AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I have written, I am not insistant that the history be deleted, as long as the redirect is restored and respected. BTW, the entire talk pages from both articles that were replaced by the new one are archived there. [4] -- Fyslee 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

## Gabriel graph

I have created that article today. I do not know if article on similar topic already exist but I am not able to find such an article. Can you please take a quick look at it. best! --- ALM 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

(Warning: I'm not Arthur, but I expect you don't mind my answering first.) This might be the same as Delaunay triangulation. Where did you find the name "Gabriel graph"? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not the same concept; the Delaunay triangulation involves circumcircles of triangles, and this concept involves "circumcircles" of segments of the graph. However, I, too, would like to know where the name came from, and what paper or web site it may have appeared in. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed Delaunay triangulation are totally different. Check Google search and some website are [5], [6] and [7] (last two help in drawing them too). I have not read any paper as yet but there are many papers written on them. The reason I got interested in them are because they have some applications in Wireless Sensor Networks. One can use them to find paths which are more energy efficient (consume lesser energy). I have to read more about them today and might update the article later. However, it will be great if you guys can also improve it. regards, --- ALM 11:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

## i² = -1 vs. i = sqrt{-1}

In list of numbers you very recently reverted an edit regarding a very short reference to the imaginary unit ${\displaystyle i}$. It used to say ${\displaystyle i={\sqrt {-1}}}$ and I corrected it to ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$. You reverted it, but I do not understand why.

Both imaginary unit and square root define ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$. The latter article uses that definition to define the complex square root. Not the other way around!

Please revert it back to the usual definition ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$. Qevlarr 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. ${\displaystyle x^{2}=-1}$ has solutions ${\displaystyle x=\pm i}$m so ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$ does not uniquely identify i. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither does ${\displaystyle i={\sqrt {-1}}}$.--80.136.182.36 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It does if you take the convention that the principal value of the square root takes a postive imaginary part. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Talking about a positive imaginary part already requires the choice you are trying to avoid. In any case you have to choose one solution of ${\displaystyle x^{2}=-1}$ and this chosen solution is called i. You can't choose −i.--80.136.182.36 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought Qevlarr 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thomas/Finney Calculus and Analytical Geometry defines i as ${\displaystyle i={\sqrt {-1}}}$ (see p.A-48 7th edition). However Kreyszig Advanced Engineering Mathematics has ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$ (see p.721 6th edition). Swokowski Calculus with Analytic Geometry states Since ${\displaystyle i^{2}=-1}$, we sometimes use the symbol ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {-1}}}$ in place of i (see p.986 2nd edition). It would seem that either way is "correct" however in my engineering we always used ${\displaystyle i={\sqrt {-1}}}$. Perhaps other disciplines have different practises?? Shot info 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

## Despotism or simple vandalism?

It's not that you act like some sort of higher authority, but you do that without any decent discussion, I'm not sure if these are the qualities of tyrant or vandal. Perhaps both? This article deals with only one topic? Who decides that this topic is conspiracy, do you have alternative (reputable!) hypothesis about collapse of building 7? Lovelight 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this article"? 9/11 conspiracy theories deals with conspiracy theories, credible or not. {{911ct}} refers to conspiracy theories, credible or not; it's just that the only single conspiracy theory which has a Wikipedia article is Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. If you want to write an article about "death ray" or "hologram" theories, based on WP:RS, go ahead. And the reputable hypothesis about building 7 is that the core was damaged by debris from the twin towers, and, given that steel is a good conductor of heat, softened throughout its length simultaneously, leaving the shell without support. I don't have a reference for this, but any good structural engineer could confirm that it would work that way. If you want to do the experiment yourself, (a la Feynman and the Rogers Commission) construct a model building with a zinc core. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fed up with structural engineers, magna cum nada. We may only hope that final appendix will find some sort of reference for simultaneous core breach you've just described. Guess I'll need to pursue this a bit further…Lovelight 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur it's not about those prominent people or conspiracy theories. It's about the title and the content of the template. You cannot push that singular template/article into conspiracy theories; it's a hypothesis, there is nothing on the other side. You cannot have a coin, if it doesn’t have two faces. You cannot make the elephant-fly. We cannot just label such (serious) hypothesis, its POV. Do tell, why is this still up and running? If you won't to call it conspiracy theories (as in plural), I'd suggest you write "death rays" article and find some sources for it, or find some other alternative. Of course if you try to expand it with something that would be in line with derogatory and libelous connotations of the term "conspiracy", we are back at the point one. You were perfectly clear yesterday; let me remind you of your own words: "It appears I misunderstood you. Nuclear, gave a plausible explanation that you wanted to create a 9/11 controlled demolition template. That may be a worthy cause…"; The only theory with a Wikipedia article is the controlled demolition theory."; The template is perfectly fine… as reduced by removing other entries in the controlled demolition (hypothesis) form."[8]. Why are you so persistent in pursuing that particular POV? Lovelight 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other conspiracy theories than controlled demolition, although we don't have articles on them, and there are theorists about whom we do have articles who believe in other theories. We probably should have the template in the inclusive form, as well as the controlled demolition template; however none of the drafts at {{911ct}} would be acceptable as a CD template, because they include theorists who do not accept controlled demolition.
In other words, I understand what you want in a template, but I'm asserting that the inclusive template makes perfectly good sense. I don't see why you want to damage the inclusive template in order to construct a CD template; why not construct your own template? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is no other hypothesis for fall of building 7, so I'm interested what is your basis to call it conspiracy? Because it's only one, and only plausible? This is encyclopedia, people read this stuff a lot these days, and we have no right whatsoever to form opinions. You are violating NPOV, and you are "distributing" template with only one subject calling it conspiracy theories (plural). As for your suggestion, I'm fine with your template, it matches mine perfectly, and title is far better than yours;). Would you be so kind and borrow? Then will stick all three identical templates, all of them with different labels and examine global reactions. Just lovely. Lovelight 01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are still multiple hypotheses for WTC7, including our article, which states:
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you include that and insist to call the template "conspiracy theories" I won't mind at all:). But seriously, that excerpt could hardly be called hypothesis, since its states… all sorts of things without explaining anything. Its really not about the structure at all, it's about the speed of collapse. But never mind that, if you would take a breath and took a calm look at all this you'd see the middle ground. Or NPOV, as we call it here. I've seen your suggestion, if you won't to pursue such strange "trinity" so be it. However, I would kindly ask once more, if you would simply rename current template, I'm sure you are the one who can easily trim it and form(ulate) it without causing more mess. You've repeatedly stated that it’s nothing but a good and valid tool. Not to point out, that you are still "distributing" it under name which is clearly disputed, even by yourself. So let's make clear what is clear and use this for what it is. Lovelight 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you feel that a template with only one theory should be named for that theory, even if supporters of other theories are listed. Fine. I found another theory for you. Have fun. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Vaya Con Dios to your theory;)… we did have fun, haven’t we? Lovelight 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

### References

1. ^ Holmes AS, et al. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol. 2003 |Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85.
2. ^ Ryan DE, et al. Trace elements in scalp-hair of persons with multiple sclerosis and of normal individuals Clin Chem. 1978 Nov;24(11):1996-2000.
3. ^ a b "Interim Report on WTC7" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology. June 2004.

Dear Mr. Arthur Rubin,

After, my honourable wikipedian, the same questions I have posted to Mr. Marcika, I do direct to you (as you have seen there..., so not rewritten here):

You have written on 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) as (summary...) follows:

"[...] Not havinging seen "ő" in his name before Wikipedia, I was skeptical, at first. But I now believe it is correct in the original Hungarian. [...] Also note that changing the alternative language links is QUITE INAPPROPRIATE — there, we need to reflect what actually appears in that langauge's Wikipedia, rather than what we may believe to be correct. [sic, ?] (Bold, lower- and upper-case and sic our).

Honourable wikipedian, for the sake of... equal treatment, I ask to you "Why the correct and original form BRASIL is not presented in English texts? And so more, and much more?!...

Best wiki-productions!

EgídioCampos, 2007.02.05, 15:45 UTC

The external links I removed were all the same link, to his website. I also removed content from the body of articles, which was to his own obscure personal theory, and I removed quotes from him, and I removed links to google searches which he posted which were designed so that his website would come up high on the list of hits. Neither he nor his website are reliable sources, so his quotes and his website don't belong anywhere on wikipedia other than on his user page. I had some difficulty at times knowing how much of what he posted to cut, though, because he often posts one or two paragraphs of what to me is incomprehensible babble. It is possible that some of it makes sense or could belong in the articles, I can't be entirely sure as I'm not an expert on any of the topics these articles relate to. Of course, none of it is sourced, so removing it is always a reasonable choice. If you think any portion of his written content does fit in its article and adds to it, feel free to put it back. And, note that this isn't the first time I have done this; back around October I removed these same spam links from him from dozens of articles, but he waited until I had forgotten about him, made a new account, and reposted a bunch of it. --Xyzzyplugh 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed a couple dozen, myself, but left about 3 which seemed plausible. I think it might have been in July, and it is another new account (which then makes at least the third mass addition.) OK, there's little harm in a few grains of wheat being thrown away with the chaff. Perhaps if there are fewer left each time he spams, he might get the idea.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the number of references is not my problem. I did not seen " obviously inappropriate links", some of them are from my user page, not from the articles(?)

-By the way, there is an observable not neglected correlation between your comments and actions of an anonymous "universal expert" | contribs)(?) Xyzzyplugh (with enormous activity) (for example only, reply is after 6 min - during the night). -I have no time to correct/revert his/her last "modifications", may be could you do it?

Best wiki-salutations!

### General reflection

From the socio-cognitive perspective, for the psychological equilibrium, every person needs to have a minimal space/domain under own control. It can be related to sc.research, sport, art, and internet navigation. The most important factor is that "its state depends on him/her".

Unfortunately, in the physical and social competitive world with complex rules, there is difficult to conquest and maintain such space. Therefore many people search domains where is possible to govern and win with simple rules adequate to their, frequently, specific capacities. For example, such domain can be Wikipedia editing especially if the "play" is against selected persons. In order to be the winner, sufficient necessary attribute is to have more time.

Of course, any discussion which such personalities is more than difficult.

Take it up with Xyzzyplugh; I wouldn't have deleted all of the links he/she deleted, but I'm not going to help you restore them. Most of them are clearly inappropriate as WP:OR, as it seems to be your theory, published only on your web site. If some of the theory is published in respectible journals, that might be relevant. (And if you think Xyzzyplugh and I are working together, take it up with the Checkuser squad. All our communication has been through Wikipedia, on his and my user pages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

## CD template

I've done some hasty trimming, would you be so kind and drop by, see if there are some technicalities that need to be addressed (how do I insert that into related articles?), or if you see something missing or if you wish to improve it, or.., well, thanks. Lovelight 03:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course that I don't mind, I deeply appreciate it. Thanks. Lovelight 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, so how does it work from here, what do I have to type to insert it, and do we have to discuss this further or is it good to go? Lovelight 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

## Pi

Yeah :) -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

## TfD

I have nominated for deletion Template:911cd. Tom Harrison Talk 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

## Arbcom

I have reported your harrassment. --NuclearZer0 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's also in violation of your Arbcom ruling. Perhaps you should be put on 1RR as a corollary of not being tendentious. It certainly wouldn't hurt. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I have a right to defend myself, and I feel you have been harrassming me, especially with your accusations in your edit summaries. I have opened the floor to discussion in multiple places, one discussing your actions, and another discussing the general idea of sanctions being used as weapons. I was under the impression I had to notify the other party, sorry you feel that is tendentious. --NuclearZer0 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Arthur, Nuclear, please cool it. Nuclear, Arthur is right - the real problem is that the 911cd template exists at all. The 911ct template has more scope for including the balancing articles which are sceptical of the conspiracy theories, so is a better template per WP:NPOV. You are assuming bad faith. There is no deadline, everythign can be solved by calm, rational discourse, which is the wise course for you given that you are under sanction. I don't think anyone here wants you banned. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you have stated your opinion regarding all CT related items, I believe I will wait for an uninvolved admin to step in. You also ignored my entire post. Thank you for your advice, but I feel it may be bias, not purposefully however. --NuclearZer0 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In the future please try not throwing my Arbcom around, its the very thing I was complaining about oddly. --NuclearZer0 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Having the mainstream view of 9/11 conspiracy theories does not constitute involvement. I have very little involvement with these articles, virtually none with the templates, and am not an American (which helps). Your definition of "uninvolved" appears to be wither one who shares your bias or one who has no opinion on 9/11 conspiracy theories. You'll not likely find the latter, and the former is not "uninvolved". You need to take a step back before you end up back in front of ArbCom. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not address me if you cannot be civil, your constant attempts to intimidate me by throwing Arbcom show you have little arguement regarding the matter. I asked you not to appear uninvolved. I am not asking for someone who has no opinion, but, someone who stated all conspiracy items need to be removed from Wikipedia, is not someone who should be dealing with disputes related to conspiracy items. Now I am done discussing this matter with you as I feel you have not been civil to me, but I will go on assuming this was not a failed baiting attempt and you really do believe you are impartial and just passing admin who seen my post. Thank you for your input, but someone who has followed the incidents apparently disagreed with you. --NuclearZer0 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

## Arthur Rubin Libels 911TRUTHY.ORG

Hey, Arthur: How could 911truthy.org "borders on libel" when all it does is truthfully point out how 911truth.org is the 9/11 disinformation campaign? Perhaps you haven't heard that truth is not just a complete defense against charges of libel, but truth is not libel? So, Arthur, Dear, kindly take your puny opinionated thoughts and shove them back into your indoctrinated little mind and stop vandalizing[9] wikipedia. What makes you (or gives you the right to) think that there is no truth in parody? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.228.84.197 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

It's clearly not true in that it attributes the "disinformation" campaign to sources who clearly never said they were distributing disinformation. Whether they were or not, is another matter, but 911truthy.org is NOT a reliable source for anything. I don't think it meets WP:EL (I could be wrong), but it's not a notable additional source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

## Dec 12 edit

Not sure whether you are aware of this edit on Dec 12, posted to the talk page of the article about you when I think this page (your talk page) was intended. Note: I have removed the linkspam from the post but left the post intact. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

## Ilena's off-wiki attacks on her website

Since I was also looking for the same information cause she attacked me as well: I think that it was Peter who requested she remove the attacks against the three of us from her website. The discussions were on her Talk page in December if I remember correctly. Didnt she actually apologise to you as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronz (talkcontribs) to my user page, which I then moved to my talk page.

Doh! Sorry about that. --Ronz 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you look for any of this? I'm trying to find the discussion of Ilena's attack on me on her website. --Ronz 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Google cache has a version of her page dated Dec 26 where she

mentions 3 people on Wiki. She begins in the middle of the web page with a bright red box. Be sure to scroll all the way down.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:zIkERb-rugQJ:www.humanticsfoundation%C2%AD.com/wikipedia.htm+ronz+humantics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


Emilydcksn 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

## Paul Erdős: alphabetization criteria et cœtera...

Mr. RUBIN,

Respectable Wiki-Editor,

1. This user is a relatively famous Wikipedian: Arthur Rubin;
2. Note: I didn't write that, but I don't feel comfortable taking it out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk).
• My note about this: I dont know you, but that words seemed to express a sincere feeling. I hope his/her maybe quite correct!

Let us go to the goal...

Honourable Mr. Rubin,

I think I have understood why you have reverted the alphabetization I have proposed for two or three times at Paul Erdős article.

In fact — last time — , you have commented the revertions as follows:

1. 01:19 7 february 2007 (Revert failed alphabetization AGAIN)
1. 01:21 7 february 2007 (Let's try this sort, if yoy want to alphabetize)

If you appreciate [FAMILY NAME, FIRST NAME] form (Nothing against it. I do appreciate this too!...), then, accordingly, at "COLABORATIONS" TOPIC, it must appear, for example:

1. * Alavi, Yousef;
2. * Bollobas, Bela;
3. * (and so the following..., until Wrinkler, Peter, naturally, the last)

And, so, this "in fact"-alphabetized set would make sense: to provide quick and easy seeking, don't you agree?

On the other side — but under the same theme — why revertion done at "EXTERNAL LINKS" TOPIC? I really do not understand it. If Wikipedia Policies & Rules prescribe it in such manner, please, can you report it to me?

As you have seen — I think so — I am not an "anglo-culture native user", but a foreign ("alien" or "stranger"...) one, from Brasil. But I, naturally, want to obey or conform to the "Anglophone-Wikipedia home rules", not conform to mine.

So, my zealous wiki-editor... Can you answer me these questions, and solve these doubts?

Finally, can you post your answer to these questions on my discussion page?

Best wiki-salutations!

EgídioCampos, 2007.02.07, 14:20 UTC.

## Ok! And thanks...

Mr. Rubin,

I understood your entire explanation. And, naturally, I thank you for all.

Some of the pointed themes — as adopted by Anglophone-Wikipedia — receive my full disagreement. I am sorry for them. But, as you have so promptly and prudently said, it seems there is nothing (perhaps, almost nothing...) to do about for now...!

About et cœtera as I have written, take this only as a precious latinism from me. But — here and again — I wish to thank you for this too: I really suspected, but did not know, that et cetera is the preferred or unique form in this vernacular.

Wiki-Thanks!

EgídioCampos, 2007.02.08, 20:55 UTC.

## Re:Alex Jones

One of the people making edits had his talk page covered in warnings about sock puppetry, nonsense, and vandalism.. I'm trying to help this encylopedia, but I'm conidering going back to contrbuting without an account because of alot of the obvious bad faith exibited by some editors. I mean, I used to fix stuff all the time and nobody reverted it before I had an account. - SeriousCat 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to 'tell' on anyone directly, I'm new to userspace and I don't know the unwritten laws, but.. Brimba's talk page... makes me suspicius. - SeriousCat 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

## 5th millennium & Liquid-aim-bot

And my apologies for this english =^.^=

Liquid_2003 - Talk 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

## Article (publishing)

I notice you look out for Article (publishing) on a frequent basis. It was requested that the article be worked on, so I beefed it up. I did not delete anything, but simply added more information. If you have time would you take a look and see if the changes are appropriate? Thank you for any suggestions. Mazeface 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

## Gary Null

As you may be able to see from the article's talk page, I am trying to keep the peace on the above article and stick to NPOV. I am still waiting for a reply to a request on the BLP noticeboard. I would particularly like opinions about the Barrett issue, from experienced users, especially from admins - are you one? Thanks. Itsmejudith 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, although I'm an Admin, I'm considered pro-Barrett in general by most, so that I would not be considered a good, neutral, commentator. I'm willing to try, but (to mix metaphors) it might be like pouring oil on troubled waters, and lighting it.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

IN RE deletion of mention on "non-notable" daughter of Gary Null. Gary Null may be lone leader in presenting an alternative health paradigm but he is not alone in the world. Larry R. Holmgren 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I read this on Phyllis Schlafly: "She was married to attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr., (1909–1993) for forty-four years. They had six children: John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andrew, and Anne." No one deleted her familial context. Larry R. Holmgren 02:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Go ahead and re-add it, or would you like me to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm trying to find more facts on Gary Null's life. He is reticent to reveal them. Larry R. Holmgren 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

## Anaheim Hills, Ericsaindon2, 3rr, etc

Thanks for the heads up about a possible block. No one ended up blocking me, although I thought I was following "the letter of the law" in regards to banned editors. It's so frustrating that we have to constantly semi-protect an article that should be completely uncontroversial. Sigh. AniMate 03:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

## School prank

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on School prank. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. — Skinmeister 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged, although reverting to the concensus version is not necessarily an exception to 3RR. If you wish to make a report at WP:AN/3, go ahead. I've reported you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sad to see that you're still censoring the School pranks article. I don't think you really understand what consensus means. Matt Gies 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the AfD result (keep, if only sourced pranks were listed in the article) is what I and others are enforcing. In theory, that would mean that, if the unsourced pranks were in the article, it would qualify for a speedy delete per AfD. I don't want to go there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

## unhappy campers

Arthur, since you are most familiar with our respective histories in the relevant period, I'll ask for your view on civility here. I have sent an actual preliminary email with some key evidence pieces identified to User:Lethaniol, but not yet a written up analysis. Shot_info has lost his sense of humor when he should be preparing for a bigger, better laugh at me according to him, when no doubt there must a number of QW editors that are going to envy his "catch".--I'clast 10:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since all of this is rubbing off on me at the RfArb, I request that this matter be dealt with promptly. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have just replied to I'clast email. As the whole Shot info COI issue has been taken to the ArbCom, I have said that I will leave the issue up to them until the ArbCom concludes. I suggest any evidence is presented to the ArbCom in email form (via Fred) as per Durova's suggestion. Cheers Lethaniol 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, it appears that I'clast et.al. don't have any evidence and that they do is flimsy at best, hence why I keep asking for it given that supposedly it is available for use by Ilena (and I'clast) in her ArbCom defense. Or rather, they are using this "evidence" to make an entire thread of unsubstantiated claims without actually providing any hint of what they actually have for rebuttal. Hence why I keep telling I'clast to cease his harassment on my talk page, put up or shut up. My take is that I'clast was quite prepared to blow smoke up everybody's rear end and bias the ArbCom with "other people are COIing, so if one is punished, all should be punished" type defense strategy. You can see Ilena locking onto this tactic quite early. Shot info 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

## Ibague

Why do you continue to remove my posts. The monkey Invasion of 1987 was real, so please leave my submission alone. --Ibague Monkey 2 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Chuck Norris" reference in your edit comment is a dead giveaway. It never happened. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
STOP VANDALIZING IBAGUE!!!! OMG YOU AREZ LAME!!!!oneoneoneoneone1! 128.95.141.33 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not allowable to create pages in order to "out" editors. See WP:BLOCK. She can do it offline if she wants to. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you help last night, today. Arthur, I could use some quick help on stakes here. I am pretty sure an editor wll be leaving soon and I would prefer that be as amicable as possible. If an editor is indef blocked, does that mean the user page *has* to go away? Also same question for banned?--I'clast 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems traditional, but all I can find is WP:BAN#User Pages:

Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits.

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

## Juan Carlos Echeverry

Aside from the original author, I don't typically notify other editors of an AfD nomination in order to avoid the appearance of vote stacking. Editors actively involved in an article typically notice an AfD nomination pretty quickly. Rklawton 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining. It was just since we posted within 5 minutes (less if you ignore the edit conflict), I wanted it noted that you didn't contact me. Sorry if it wasn't clear. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No worries. Rklawton 15:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

## Billy Thorpe

I see you undid my undoing of this entry on February 28 deaths. The reason I reverted it in the first place is that it is currently February 27, so I fail to see how this person could be dead. After that, I did a (cursory) google search and checked the man's personal web page, and found nothing. I don't doubt that you have found sources, but figured I'd explain my reasoning. Natalie 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, he's in TZ UTC+11, and died around 0230 on February 28. That would be 1530 February 27, UTC, which is a good 8 hours ago. Sorry, it could be real. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Apparently his homepage has not been updated to reflect the death yet. Too many fake death reports has perhaps made me a bit too suspicious. Natalie 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it does appear that he has passed on [[10]]. Shot info 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

## quotation

Hello Arthur Rubin, you edited the page Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center with the following comment: "(Remove quote from source which is probably a copyright violation)". But I think this constitutes what is called a fair use, so I will put the quotation back on the page. Rougieux 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

An extract of the fair use article:

Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alerations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that the link, itself, is likely a copyright violation, and so violates WP:EL. The quote would be fair use if the link was OK. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I removed the link to Youtube but I let the quotation in the article. And I wrote an email to "VPRO tv" this morning. They say it's OK to include the quote and proposed to link to the video on their site.Rougieux 11:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

## AN/I on User:Antaeus Feldspar

Hi. Since you are tangentially involved in this, it is appropriate that I let you know about it and invite your comments. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks_and_disruption_of_noticeboards_by_User:Antaeus_Feldspar Thanks. --Justanother 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I was sporged, probably by the CoS, for a favorable comment I wrote in news:alt.religion.scientology . (I think I removed over 90% of the the 1000 or so from the Google archives, but there are still a number remaining. With Google's new From: mangling, they are difficult to find....) I don't want to get involved again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely understand and sympathize. Just wanted to let you know. Take care. --Justanother 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Though I would be remiss if I did not invite you to consider if you are holding against me, as a Scientologist, something that the CoS (maybe, who knows, but I will grant it was them), holding against me that the CoS did something stupid in perceived defense against perceived ill-intentioned attacks. That would be like holding Watergate against every Republican. I do not think you would do that, would you? I must say that I see quite a pronounced "blind spot" when it comes to Scientology on the part of otherwise perfectly reasonable netizens. --Justanother 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

## Could someone explain how to revert?

The encyclopedia's help entry on reversion is unclear; it's missing a step or something. Can someone please explain how to get a page to revert? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.23.174 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

(This is my interpretation, not taken from any present Wikipedia documents)
1. Click the history tab.
2. Find the version you want to revert to.
3. Click on the date/time to select that version.
5. In the Edit summary field, enter a description, such as "revert vandalism to revision of [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]"
6. Click the Save page button.
7. Go back to the history and make sure that no one else has added changes you did not which wish to revert.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not much different than what's in Help:Revert#How to revert. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

## invitation

Arthur, I particularly invite your general discussion on system effects and merit[11] beyond this specific case.--I'clast 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you--I'clast 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

## Regarding only being able to submit a site once to dmoz

The page I sourced clearly has listed:

Step Two Do a quick search in the directory at dmoz.org (the home of the Open Directory) to be sure your site isn't already listed. This saves everyone time.

The assumption is that, if the site is found, one would save everyone time by not submitting because you could not be listed more than once. I can modify the language, but the difference is semantics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.53.133 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

BTW - still figuring out how to use this and for some reason I couldn't respond on the actual page. I'm referring to DMOZ - Other alleged abuses have occurred at the executive level, with company management leveraging the link value from ODP to accelerate new privately funded projects. Although site policies suggest that an individual site is submitted in only one category [11][citation needed], Topix.net, a news aggregation site operated by ODP founder Rich Skrenta, has more than 10,000 listings.[12] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.53.133 (talkcontribs).

Well, although the FAQs are down, the actual policy is that a site may only be suggested once* (actually, once in Regional, and once in a topical category, per language the site is in), but that editors may add the site and subsites to additional categories if they find it appropriate. I'll see if I can find a cite. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Found it: http://dmoz.org/help/submit.html#multiple

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully Arthur, I think an error is being made due to semantics. On the same page I cited it also asks that a url be submitted only once. In fact, it asks to not "submit the same URL more than once. Example: http://www.dmoz.org and http://www.dmoz.org/index.html". If you take at the Topix urls submitted throughout the directory (you can see this through my first source link)they are all subfolders of the same url - which seems contradictory to the policy. Again, we can debate the language all day long - but the facts are that the submission policies clearly outline 1 url is to be submitted per site, thousands of Topix urls have been submitted and accepted into DMOZ (it's not just that editors have placed the topix.net url in multiple categories) and the coincidence that this seems to be an exception made for the former founder of the organization and his new private venutre should be noted. I'd be happy to rephrase the statment, but I believe the statements made are supported by documentation on the site.

Actually, the topix sites weren't suggested; they were added by an internal process. Some DMOZ editors (OK, to avoid any possibility of violating DMOZ confidentiality, I) have suggested that that wasn't a good idea, and future automatic processes should be proposed for comment by other editors, rather than being done by fiat. It still may be an indication of improper activity (I cannot say more), but the facts are not quite as you describe them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arthur - again - this is becoming a conversation of semantics. Shall I change the original wording to say that DMOZ has added, through internal processes, thousands of links from the directory to privately funded projects of management? I appreciate you driving the discussion here, but would like you to help suggest how the information can be communicated through wikipedia - as it is both accurate and of note. Shall I source this conversation? Thanks in advance.

Well, it's complicated. In general, sites should only be suggested once, to one category (with the caveat noted above, and, in some bizarre cases, sites which have two completely unrelated sections may be suggested to both categories.). What is a site is a complicated matter (for instance, geocities, although it has a single domain, probably should be considered to have each "user" as a separate site.)
As for topix.net (within the last couple years), cnn.com (a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far, away...), and a few other sites, perhaps it would be best to combine the note with the following sentence about Rolling Stone magazine. Following "...not be repeated", a new sentence such as "Some news sites, including (cnn.com) (associated with the parent company) and (topix.net) (associated with the founder, Rich Skrenta) have had many of their pages added by automated processes, leaving the perception that the site is used to improve the page rank of related projects." (I'll let you develop the correct phrasing. If references are needed, you can reference one of the search results for the count, an appropriate FAQ for "automated processes", and your favorite anti-ODP site for the perception." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And you may not source this conversation. Probably only DMOZ FAQs, newsletters, and http://resource-zone FAQs should be considered adequate attribution for "official" ODP policies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Make sense. I've enjoyed the ongoing dialogue.

## Deletion Review

I saw you insightful observation on Jimbo's talk page last night, and wandered by your userpage while responding to it. There, I noticed that you say you are keeping an eye on deletion review. I'm currently the primary closer of deletion reviews, and don't recollect seeing your username there. If you still have interest in this area, could you swing by and opine more often? The number of regular participants is currently probably between 10 and 20, with the number of frequent opiners in the single digits. More regular participants would increase the health of the forum. I've had to relist several discussions the past couple days because they didn't have enough opinions either way to close them. GRBerry 15:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies; I really haven't been keeping up with Deletion Review lately. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

## Hey Arthur...

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) was not quite a revert, but you did remove the link to the 90125 article. Why did you do that?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You could read my edit summary, but 90125 is a redirect to 90125 (album). There's also an apparent convention that years with 5 digits or more have a "comma", making 90125 not being a proper year. See, for example, Year 10,000 problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

## Gentzen

I've made a brief remark concerning a revert you did in the article on Gentzen. Could you respond on that talk page? Thanks. Francis Davey 12:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

## School pranks

Please stop deleting content from school pranks? I went and found a book specifically to deter this sort of thing, yet you just now deleted a large swath of pranks AND reference to that book! Frotz 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you check the history, I changed the reference to a citation. If you actually check and confirm the other pranks are referenced in that book, you may add a citation to that reference, and I'll leave them alone. Unreference pranks may not be listed in the article.Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry. I guess I got to the article before you added the citation. I'll add more pranks from the book when I get some time to do so. Frotz 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

## A pity

Ombudsman's constant return to autism epidemic, read with his unaltered comments on the process etc look to me like tendentious editing on a medical topic. The article is interfered with, thereby. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Ombudsman_placed_on_Probation

Midgley 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

## NaN

Take a fucking chill pill. I was searching on Wikipedia under "Not a number" to do some research, and noticed that the article did not exist, so I created the article and redirected one of them to the other. I wasn't aware if there's a debate about the naming issue on the talk page, and I don't see why it'd matter so much. Wikipedian06 08:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## NaN debate

I read the talk page. Where the fuck is the debate over the "Not a number" namespace? The article didn't even EXIST until I added it, so there could not possibly have been a debate about it. Wikipedian06 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to rename NaN, you could have done so. Now, the history would be broken if your version were left active. (For what it's worth, if you didn't know about NaN, why were the articles identical? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## Paul Turner

I have no idea about the referee but the rugby player is described as "Welsh international rugby union player" which would make him notable according to our criteria for sportspeople. Why did you tag him for speedy deletion? - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## User:Stevenson-Perez

I notice you have also encountered the edits of User:Stevenson-Perez. I've posted some comments on the user's Talk page. - David Oberst 19:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Information is one of the articles I monitor to make sure that Fisher information doesn't improperly dominate Wikipedia. However, Stevenson-Perez is, shall we say, interesting. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

## 911 template

You might want to consider adding Template:Sep11 to your watchlist. Tom Harrison Talk 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why this person is notable and why this article shouldn't be deleted at Talk:Uładzimir Zylka. BTW number of Google search results can be small in this case, because of Belarus' language nature. There are many different variatons of this name's transliteration. Best regards. Visor 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

## to the rescue of a one-liner

I was hoping you could move Nephology (to be deleted) back to Nephology for me. Rebroad decided that this was too short and should be merged with Cloud and then moved Nephology to Nephology (to be deleted) so that he could move Cloud to Nephology. When he found out that he couldn't make that move (which ironically, he would have been able to if he'd had it speedy deleted or even Afded), he went to the talk page at Cloud (a first for him and moving) with this comment,

And his logic is making me think that I need to assume even more good faith then I have been because I'm really now thinking that he wasn't trying to vandalize the person article and that all of his bizarre page moves have just been that--not vandalism. Anyway, he's right--the article's been a one-liner for forever, but it should be put on the stubs in urgent need of attention list, if I can ever find that page again, not move and double-redirected, and not instantly deleted. But I can't put it on the stub list or do anything until it's not called (to be deleted) so I was wondering if you could move for me.

And if you understood all that, you're either very clever or drank just the right amount of coffee. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved back. I'll "delete" the (to be deleted) links once WikiProject Weather catches the move. (And it was changed to a redirect to clouds, which I believe to be wrong, as it seems to be really the theory of cloudy substances, not necessarily in weather....) Or perhaps I'm confusing Nephology with Nephrology. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yah--what he'd tried to do was move Nephology and then move Cloud to Nephology which would have worked only he made an edit on Nephology first so then he couldn't move Cloud and then the whole thing just got left like this. I've reverted to before he tagged it and I've listed it at requests for expansion, so some good will hopefully come of this mess. Any chance you could delete Nephology (to be deleted) though? That was actually Rebroad's intent anyway!
And you were right about a bad redirect. Rebroad got the study of and the actual thing a bit confused. Nephrology, by the way, is the branch of internal medicine dealing with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was nephelometry, that I was confusing it with. As for deleting "to be deleted", I'd prefer to wait until Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Meteorology articles by quality log records the move back, which should be in about 22 hours. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Not the nephelometry part, that flew a little over my head, but the deleting part. Deleting the page earlier wouldn't cause problems though would it? Since it's just a bot record of changes? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## page move

Hi Arthur! Thanks for the link. However, that wasn't a warning. It was a user making a polite request to not move the page. All users are entitled to make polite requests at any time they wish to! --Rebroad 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## Archimedes Plutonium

That page serves no encyclopedic purpose. I think it's inhumane to maintain it.--CSTAR 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## Semi-protection

It seems some school kids are having fun at the article's expense.-- Fyslee (collaborate) 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

## Domain kiting

Listen, you may think you're hot stuff here (judging by your claim to being important and etc. on your user page), but you can't get away with threatening to block another editor because he's following Wikipedia policy and you happen to disagree with what he's doing... Domain tasting, whether you like it or not, is the more common name, and Wikipedia:Naming convention policy makes it clear that articles HAVE to go by their most common name. Furthermore, I did NOT copy and paste that text of the page, the other article was already there, so the version you keep trying to use is a Wikipedia:Fork file, which also breaks policy. Your kind of aggressive threats and postuiring simply to try to prevail with what you want to do against policy is unacceptable behavior, and it's disgusting that an admin would take such ridiculous actions. I have again restored the redirect to domain tasting, as even the article in question says ICANN and other registrars and groups use that term and that domain kiting was just the term coined as a neologism by the CEO of GoDaddy. That's the way it needs to stay, and do not threaten me with an abuse of admin power, because that simply doesn't fly. I'm not impressed by egomaniacs trying to throw their self-perceived weight around, especially when it breaks a number of the rules for how Wikipedia is set up to work. DreamGuy 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you also said I should discuss it before taking the action, and I *DID* put the discussion on the talk page, and nobody else is talking there (not that they can say anything, as policy is clear on this point), so for you tell me I need to discuss it first when it's YOU who isn;t discussing it is yet another indication of your being unreasonable on this matter. DreamGuy 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
AND you even say in an old discuss on the talk page "'domain tasting' could mean something different, even if it is the preferred term in the industry -- YOU ADMIT IT'S THE PREFERRED TERM, SO POLICY SAYS WE HAVE TO USE THAT TERM. That policy has been around for years and years. As an admin you should really familiarize yourself with the policies you are supposed to be upholding. DreamGuy 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-block}} ...
• Your creation (not reversion) of the article at domain tasting is out of process.
• There was a previous failed attempt to move the article from domain kiting to domain tasting. (I didn't close it, but there were no support !votes. The oppose !votes were a bit questionable, also.)
• If you were to propose the move on WP:RM, I might support it if you give reasonable arguments. (Or it could be we need to fork, as there are two related concepts which might separately be named.)
• As for it being the perferred term, it must also not be wrong, which is disputed in this case. See the KiB discussions elsewhere. It's clear that kB is the preferred term, but it's wrong.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Listen, you just gave me a "last warning" where you threaten to block me for FREAKING FOLLOWING WIKIPEDIA policy on this issue. You are abusing your power as an admin to try to win in a difference of opinion. This simply will not fly. I will not be intimidated by some person on a power trip absuing his position like this. Say whatever the hell you want, you aren;t getting away with this. DreamGuy 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you used a block template above in your response. I don't know if you really did block me and I was just not online when you did so, but you simply CANNOT use those powers in edit conflicts. If you think you have a LEGITIMATE reason to block me, standard procedure is to get some admin not involved in the situation to do so. Your actions during all of this are an amazing abuse of power. Furthermore, your claims that I did not revert the article an that I created a new article by copying and pasting is an outright lie, and you should know this as you can see the page history and because I already told you this. You really, really need to rethink why you are at Wikipedia... to create an encyclopedia following the policies created by a group of people working together, or to abuse the system in order to try to win in dispute for which you otherwise have no support. You should resign as an admin, or take a vacation until such time as you are willing to act responsibly. DreamGuy 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

## Langan

Hi. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that the references accessible on Langan's website have again been removed, by user 151.151.21.103. As you know, these are published and legitimate secondary sources which happen to be made available on the website (excluding the CTMU Q&A which I did not add back to the entry). There are no reasonable grounds for excluding these links. I would like to appeal to you to intervene on the Langan talk page, to indicate that no useful purpose is served by this disruptive behaviour. The same user is also arguing for the re-inclusion of the lawsuit material. I know that you and I have been in conflict over the editing of the entry, but I believe that an intervention by you may help to settle things down in relation to this entry. And it is my sincere belief that the hostility which Mr Langan attracts is out of all proportion to his importance. If the entry can achieve stability without much further ongoing conflict, I think it would be best for all parties. I hope you will look favourably on this request. Thankyou. FNMF 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. L's web site may not be used as a source for articles about L, even if he really did copy them correctly, because he could change them at any time. megafoundation.com (or .net, or whatever) may me used as a source for what L said. I'm not really happy about the removal of the lawsuit, but it does seem a reasonable interpretation of policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I am disappointed at this response. If Langan changes the links, they can be removed then. There is no evidence he wishes to do so, or would wish to do so. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this line of reasoning wishes to continue conflicts in relation to this entry for no good reason. I appeal to your better judgment to reconsider whether it is really in anyone's interest to continue with a dispute about links to articles which nobody contests are themselves legitimate sources. FNMF 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the situation you describe is the situation for all links all the time. Whenever links change or go dead, they can be removed or altered. The entry in question receives more than enough scrutiny that were Langan to introduce such changes, they would be found out in quick time. To act in advance of such changes, without evidence there is any intention to make them, is unjustified. And, honestly, why would he change them? These are the articles and interviews in which he features. He has posted them because he is happy to have them read by the public. If they are legitimate sources, which is not contested, then nobody else should have a problem with them being accessible either. Again, please reconsider your attitude to this question to avoid unnecessarily prolonging this matter. FNMF 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
His website is not a WP:RS, so it can only be used as a reference to things that he said, not for things said about him. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Your willful insistence on confusing Langan's website with the utterly legitimate secondary sources accessible there is very disappointing. I note that no attempt to address my arguments was made. I am at a loss to understand why you and others are so determined to prolong this dispute. It appears that your lack of objectivity continues unabated, and I am forced to conclude that my offer of thanks for helping to enable the entry to settle down was premature. FNMF 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I still see no reasonable arguements that you've presented. No person's archiving of news articles about himself should be referenced as a reference, but possibly could appear as an link. And neither your argument nor Jimbo's for removing the legal dispute are consistent with the policies and guidelines, although Jimbo has been known to make up policies as he goes along. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Your edits to Christopher Michael Langan

As an administrator it might be best to step back and perhaps consult an univolved administrator with regard to the inclusion of acceptable links in the article. Similar types of links are ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia and do not violate any policy. --NightSky 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please desist from engaging in edit warring and vandalism in relation to this article. You are displaying a clear intention to disrupt this entry. FNMF 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They did violate policy, in that a personal web site was only supposed to be used for assertions about what that person said, rather than about anything else. That policy seems to have been lost in the absorbsion of WP:RS into WP:ATT, so I'm not wrong. I apologize. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

## Domain tasting/kiting

Hi. I'm just posting to let you know that I've asked User:DreamGuy about possible ways to address the edit war that appears to be going on over Domain tasting and Domain kiting. Our conversation is at User talk:DreamGuy#Domain tasting.

I wonder if I could request that you refrain from any further reversions on that article until some talk page discussion occurs over just how the content there should be handled, whether in one article or two, and if one, under which title? It seems that there's some support for two articles, and some support for one article at two possible titles. It would be good to get these issues sorted out, perhaps via a content RfC, before any more reverting goes on. Thanks for understanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give DreamGuy one day (24 hours) to revert himself and edit the domain kiting article, or I'll revert and protect the redirect. The current copy at domain tasting started as a cut/paste move, and should be merged into domain tasting or deleted before any edits are done. I'm not that interested in the article; I think I first noticed it because of a previous fork war, so I don't think it's improper for me to lock the article in what I believe to be the consensus position. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, is there any way I could convince you not to revert and protect the article, whether or not DreamGuy self-reverts? Aren't we supposed to always protect m:The Wrong Version? IMO, it's more important for us as admins to set an example of discussing before reverting than it is to have the article in the right place right away.
I won't reverse any admin action you decide to do, but I would warmly urge that you refrain from using your admin buttons to control the article. Please consider helping facilitate a productive discussion instead of reverting. Let's show DreamGuy that we're not taking a "side" "against" him; I think he might have that impression now. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there's an existing concensus that the name should be domain kiting, after a move war and two failed Wikipedia:requested moves, neither of which had any arguments presented in favor of the move. I don't understand why no arguments were presented in the first RN, but the second was because no one except DreamGuy seems to have cared, and he was too busy reverting to actually present arguments. However, I'll defer reverting until some discussion occurs. The first question, though, is whether domain tasting should be deleted or history-merged into domain kiting. We need to do one or the other to handle the content fork issue. In either case, we need to set things up so that DreamGuy can move the article, rather than cut/paste move it. I'm willing to wait for another concensus if we can arrange it so that there is only one article history. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll work on the histories today, and clean up some of the mess left by so many cut-and-paste moves, forks and reversions. Some of it needs merging, whatever else happens. I probably ought to set up the talk page discussion, too, or maybe do that first, and get an idea of what needs to be where before moving anything else. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but DreamGuy removed your attempt at warning him from his talk page, which seems to be his habit with anything even slightly critical that appears on his talk page, instead of leaving it as a proper record. See his deletion of your warning. He has also removed a polite warning I left after I saw multiple blatant violations of Wikipedia policy in his edit summaries one night (see diff, which only listed a small sample). I know it's allowed to remove blatant attacks and vandalism from your own talk page, but DreamGuy seems to treat any questioning of his actions as a blatant personal attack. I'm a bit worried, as it seems that he has repeatedly been a magnet for criticism, but persons are left to sort through old versions of his talk page to find even mild criticism of his actions. At first glance, one is given the rather deceptive impression that nobody has ever become irritated with him. Is whitewashing your reputation like that allowed? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize it's not to me that the question was addressed, but as far as I understand, yes, removing warnings from one's talk page is certainly allowed. You can be sure, when someone removes a warning you left them, that they have read it. Those potted template warnings are actually not very effective in getting a productive discussion going. If you're dealing with a content dispute, your best option is to engage the other editor in open dialogue, if that fails, or if it's a more general behavior problem, then a user RfC may be appropriate. That's my opinion, anyway, proferred because I happened to be in this thread already. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur that policy is that a user can remove warnings from his talk page. As he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, that's to be expected. However, the {{uw-move4}} is also in the edit summary, so it can easily be seen by a reviewing admin that I, at least, think there was a problem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

## Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

## TV Tome

Please see this diff. Matthew 14:14, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

## Could you weigh in at ANI?

I was hoping you could weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#repeated unwarranted warnings being left on my talk page.

I woke up to a lot of messages from Rebroad and continued to get them and they continued to get more confusing and to attack me more. I think/am hoping that there's a lot of miscommunication. He seems to be under the impression that I'm not differentiating between policy and opinion, which I didn't understand until he said, "How can you say "the topic will not be discussed more in the Cloud article than it already is"? As usual, you are trying to dictate policy based on your own opinion. This is now your 3rd (at least) warning regarding your repeated practice of doing this."

To me it's obvious that that is a statment based on my opinion and that wiki policy is nowhere in the galaxy, but that didn't come accross.

At any rate, this has gone to WP:ANI and since you were around for some of this whole mess, I'd appreciate your comments there. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

## That was no attack

Hello. That edit was no attack and i have proof of the same if interested contact me. Coolbunny 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

## Unsubstantiated warnings

Recently you posted a warning on my discussion page against reverting content and adding uncited material. You also implied I am engaged in edit warring. I find this warning and these claims to be wholly unsubstantiated and inconsistent with WP:AGF.

If you can identify specific edits by me (e.g., by id number) that violate policy or demonstrate a failure to recognize or attempt to reach consensus, I welcome you to identify them to me so I can make a good faith effort to address the deficiencies and correct any mistaken action that I may have made inconsistent with WP policy.

Absent such identification, you have given me no reason to conclude that your warning does not represent an unhelpful and unwarranted action that is entirely inconsistent with my very detailed and courteous requests for additional discusssion, consensus, and substantiation from reliable sources for all materials contributed to Wikipedia articles. Respectfully submitted. dr.ef.tymac 17:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting 4 times in 24 hours is prima facia (sp) evidence of edit warring. You've clearly done 3, and your last edit was arguably a partial revert. I might add that your 8 changes in the last 24 hours having been reverted by 5 different editors suggests that you don't have concensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, although I appreciate your efforts at maintaining article integrity, and your subsequent discussion and follow-up with me on my talk page, I would like to address to some points that I think merit consideration.
1. Prima facie evidence does not equal conclusive evidence, reasonably informed people can see things differently. Prior discussion helps clear that up. Direct discussion is what I had been requesting from square zero.
2. I did 2 "Undo-style" reverts, both of which were preceeded by express (yet unmet) requests for input on the discussion page. I can respect that might not have been appreciated. Nevertheless, clearly defining "consensus" seems next to impossible if there is no direct discussion upon which to establish it, no?
3. You seem to have applied an expansive definition of what constitutes a "revert" (as opposed to a "change" or an "integration" under WP:CON). That's fine, but it seems that would warrant an even closer careful scrutiny and greater effort to first discuss and verify and determine good faith, and not initiating first-contact with warnings and threatened blocks.
4. Your terms: "suggests you don't have consensus" (above) seem to conflate support for a contributor with support for the contributions themselves. This does not seem entirely appropriate in this instance.
5. "8 changes reverted by 5 different editors" I'm not sure that's entirely correct. At least two of the contributions were uncontroversial mundane clarifications that (so far) remain uncontested:
• changed "image" to "video" [12]
• changed "hit by a plane" to "hit by a Boeing 757" [13]
• [2007-03-25T08:41:05] This one was potentially controversial, but I indicated it as a "propose rewoding of caption," (sic) directly requesting feedback, and not for the purpose of "warring", it was reverted by a user who has yet to address the issue in discussion.
1. Most ironically, the main point of contention was the content of one particular image caption. Prior to my recent contributions, the caption had no mention about doubts with the video, but now, in the current version of the article, it does. Does that mean my efforts have led the way in a "change" of consensus? To this day I do not know the precise answer to that question, because the discussion page is still parked with unmet requests for clarification on that precise issue.
Like I said previously, thanks for your efforts at discussion. Although we may not have identical views on all matters, I am always willing to consider and respond to concerns from other contributors. Regards, dr.ef.tymac 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## Talk Stephan Barrett

I just wanted to let you know you forgot to sign before that bot gets there! ;) --Crohnie 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think my moves back and forth prevented the bot from finding it, but it's signed now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

## Peano axioms up for A-class rating

Hi Arthur. You're probably aware that the mathematics WikiProject has set up a process to grant articles that deserve it an A-class rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating. Recently, our article on the Peano axioms was nominated. Unfortunately, there are no comments from anybody who really knows logic, so I was hoping that you could have a look at the article, see whether there is anything there that would embarrass us, and leave a comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Peano axioms. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

## Quickie on ordinal numbers

Thanks for fulfilling my previous request. As a reward, here is another one ;) But I hope this one is really easy for you.

User:GregWoodhouse alerted me that real number contains the sentence "In fact, the cardinality of the reals is 2ω, i.e., the cardinality of the set of subsets of the natural numbers." Should this really be 2ω and not ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}}$ ? I don't understand ordinal numbers, but ordinal arithmetic says that ordinal exponentiation and cardinal exponentiation should not be confused, and that in fact 2ω = ω. However, this sentence has been in the article for over a year, many people must have read it, and as I said, I don't understand ordinal numbers, so I'd like to check before changing it. Thanks again. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Arthur here, but the issue is just that the notation 2ω can be used either to mean cardinal exponentiation or to mean ordinal exponentiation, and except in contexts where it clearly is supposed to be ordinal exponentiation it is read to mean cardinal exponentiation. It couldn't hurt to change the article to say ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}}$, since that is unambiguous. CMummert · talk 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll confirm (and why are you monitoring my talk page?) 2ω looks better typographically, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to step on your toes. I left some comments here in January and never took it off my watchlist. Normally I would ignore it but Jitse's edit summary hooked me. CMummert · talk 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that paragraph should have a {{main|cardinality of the continuum}}, or some other appropriate template pointing to that article? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I reformulated it to get rid of ${\displaystyle 2^{\omega }}$. There is a link to cardinality of the continuum, but it's a bit hidden. Using the main template is a good idea, but I fear it might be a bit too conspicuous in this situation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Explanation?

Um, I was wondering why you blocked me? I didn't unblock myself - I'm not sure who did, there appears to be something wrong with the logs - but the only thing that might be problematic that I can think of is that when I blocked two separate users, for entirely valid reasons, I put "April Fool's" as a reason. DS 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Fyslee has been improperly sanctioned in the past for doing things that he had not, in fact, done, I assumed that you were committing April Fools admin vandalism. Could you explain what Fyslee has done? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I can. He was leaving blatantly inappropriate welcome messages. Just read special:undelete/Template:welcome-anon-Jimbo. Picaroon 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to my user page, as the admin in question is explaining his reasons there. -- Fyslee/talk 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven's block has been improperly annulled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DragonflySixtyseven

Please reinstate it and see to it that their admin privileges are removed. I would also like to have that improper block removed from my block log. -- Fyslee/talk 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take it to WP:AN/I, as I've unblocked you. I'm still on dial-up, and can't give it the attention it deserves. (I think your use of {{Welcome-anon-Jimbo}} may very well constitute "being a jerk". But "being a jerk" is not a reason for blocking. There are a number of admins who would be gone if that was the case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wish someone had explained that to me. I have acted as a member of the welcoming committee and been welcoming new IP users, using Jimbo's own words incorporated into a standard template. I had no idea it was offensive and wish someone had told me. I see that the template has now been deleted, and still no one has contacted me about it. If Jimbo was wrong, then why is it my problem? I had no idea that his POV on the subject was considered wrong by the community. I have acted in very good faith all the time and wouldn't dream of being a jerk or not being nice to anyone. -- Fyslee/talk 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

## Base

Hello, you rather quickly reverted my edits to base (mathematics) on the grounds that the material is already in the target article. Maybe I am dumb, but I can't find it: the nearest thing I found is a link to exponentiation, and I found no reference to non-integer bases except on the talk page. What happens if someone reads logarithm or natural logarithm and want to know what the base means? The definition of base as the number b in an expression bp is almost certainly the origin of the term (with p as the exponent or power), although it is certainly true that the meaning of base as in base 10 is more familiar to the average reader. I think this whole issue requires a bit of thought, so I'll restore my edit for the time being, and put something on the talk page. Geometry guy 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

## re: he rode a blazing saddle he wore a shining…

Thank you Arthur… we are all, all of us, good people… see, Morton, Peter, Aude, Nuclear, Salvagenaut… or Tom, or Strangelove:) or so on… we are all thinking the same thing… we are striving for the same thing… so, regardless of what has been, or what will be, we are going to make this world a better world for us all… tell you what, imo, in this strange play we are playing, and grand play it is… in this play the decider is nothing but the deceiver and divider, but with good grace he will become uniter (a bit like 911, higher emergency call it is…), and we will meet our destiny, as we are supposed to… a moment of bliss Arthur, thought I'd share… Lovelight 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

## Robin Williams

What is your evidence for this statement? Keep in mind robin-williams.net does not claim to be officially affiliated with Robin Williams. --Wafulz 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See article talk page. Most of the Internet Movie Database-like sites seem to state 1951. I realize they are not perfect, but they are edited and generally considered WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

## Inappropriate to inform about ambiguity?

"Inappropriate reference to ambiguity"[14]? Am I insulting some holy calender system?--Patrick 00:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate in that article, unless you want to add sections for Month-Day and Month-Year and then note the ambiguity. It's clearly inappropriate in 1st century and in 31, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

## Ibagué

I've unprotected Ibagué in the hope that the monkey invasion has passed. I've got an eye on it, but we may need to reprotect it if the primates are still at play. -Will Beback · · 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

## Barrett, notability, importance

There have been a number of side-discussions on a number of user talk pages. The latest is User_talk:Crohnie#Response_to_your_comments_to_me_about_S.B.. Please chime in if you like. I'm trying to use "importance" rather than "notability" to avoid confusion with WP:N, because WP:N only applies to notability of the subject of the article as a whole. --Ronz 19:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes please do, I hope to get to read some other biographies of living people. I like the suggestions nearby for me to understand better what's going on, so feel free to chat away about this, and I mean anyone. I think this is getting to a very important point towards policies of Wikipedia. So far I have read just one other biography and Ronz and Shot info have me understanding a lot better how the S.B. one is overly critical. I have to admit I am finding this all very interesting and I want to understand things better (I'm getting there slowly) so that I am a useful, calm and fair editor. Thanks, --Crohnie 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in User talk:Michael Chuquet/Hexadecimal billion and Talk:Binary prefix/Hexadecimal Billion. Uncle G 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, 07:11, Tuesday May 23 2017 (UTC)
Please check out the mediation, it's been changed. Have you ever done it this way?--Crohnie 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

## Jonathan Hey - notable ??

I suggest you to exame this article with few proceedings references and repeated links ... (?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Overix (talkcontribs) 04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

## Beyond Mathematics (but inside it!)

Hi, Mr. Rubin!

The subject of this does not refer to reply anyway. (...)

►►►From your user page Wikipedia Babel3:
• I use to observe Nature offers saving Life.
2. You are a Erdős number 1 class! This certainly is merit to both you and Paul Erdős, of course!
3. For anyone: "No matter if your Erdős number is quite near infinity. What matter is how near you are of yourself number!".
• I have seen that Wikipedia has gained a lot of good things from your wiki-trouble, as at WikiProject Mathematics as at other themes;
• I have seen you are so much dilligent and vigilant about your vernacular. (its & it's are different things, no doubt!...) And other zealous observances more you have declined at your customized Wikipedia Babel3... Despite of no exclusion to every tribal human culture expression — however, so do I!
• No matter if anyone is skeptic (what is this?)... if that one believe in it!
34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. [Gospel according to John Apostle, Chapter 13]
• Looking for neighbour as the same to me means looking for... God!

Have a nice weekend!

EgídioCampos, 2007.02.09, 20:00 UTC.

• Note: The above comment was written by me, despite of his accidental diconnection, then remaining as User IP:200.101.69.132. EgídioCampos

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:00, 9 Februrary 2007 (UTC)

Add further timestamp, so this section might be archived 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:00, 9 Februrary 2007 (UTC)

## Requesting feedback at 2006 Lebanon War talk

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the fairly active editors on the 2006 Lebanon War article. If you have a chance, please take part in the requested move discussion going on there. The move is in regards to whether we should use uppercase "War" or lowercase "war" in the article title. Whether you agree or disagree with my position, your feedback and vote would be appreciated. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

## Wood and Reynolds (space beams) at CD article

Hi Arthur, when you have time, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about the basis for including the "space beams" idea in the controlled demolition article. I've started a section on the talk page here to discuss. It seems to me that if the idea is to stay there has to be more to say about it. But I haven't been able to find any solid sources.--Thomas Basboll 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

## Robin Williams

The consensus birth year on this article is not 1951. We have a published biography saying 1952, some websites saying 1951, and some saying 1952. I'm not sure why you're asserting that 1951 is any way a consensus birth year. --Wafulz 04:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of editors seems to be 1951, as per the talk page. The consensus of sources is unclear. The problem is that the better monitored of the websites seem to say 1951, while the only printed source apparently says 1952. However, there's no real reason to think that a book would be better edited than a website, except for potential libel. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. There are only one editor and one IP supporting 1951 based entirely on a fan site that offers no evidence other than "1952 is wrong" or that "hundreds of people" believe it. Even Britannica says 1952. I believe that a formal encyclopedia and a printed biography offer much more than celebrity websites and a fan page that offers no justification. --Wafulz 15:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
TCM's biography says 1951. I had forgotten about Britannica, as it's not cited in the article. Checking my 2005 Britannica DVD....not present. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I check out the TCM website, and in their notes they say "some sources list his birth year as 1951". Interestingly, their bibliography included the book "The Life and Humor of Robin Williams", which is another biography of him. Amazon categorizes the book as 21 July 1952, which suggest we have another printed biography listing his birth year as 1952. --Wafulz 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, go ahead and remove the birthdate from the infobox. I think we need to discuss the specific references on the article talk page before settling on a date, but I agree it's quite unclear which is accurate, now. (You may refer to this edit in the edit summary, to show my agreement.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia entry

Hi, I want to write an entry but it would be about myself.

I hit the headlines 2 years ago when I proposed to my girlfriend on Question Time (UK politics TV programme), and made headlines (all over the world it seems). see this>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4234907.stm



How would I go about writing a page to go onto Wikipedia, and upload photos and details etc.

Thanks very much. Alan Jordan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordy Lad (talkcontribs) 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

If you're still convinced you need to write it, write the article on a subpage of your user page, and use the Requested Moves procedure to request a move into article-space. But don't say I didn't warn you.
Did I mention you should read WP:AUTO?
That being said, the Wikipedia:Requested articles sections may offer a possible solution. It may be discouraged, but you do have a news article about yourself.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

## You Should Review your work better

Specially when pages are under attack you are supposed to protect content not to motivate spammers review your work accordance to wikipedia policies respect international content the world is not only america Sir —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.95.159 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of AfD notices is never appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

## May 1, 1982

Arthur,

The source regarding that milestone (baptism by fire) is the FAA article. Please consider that article as main source. Mxcatania 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

## Pi

Why "(Reverted edits by BorisFromStockdale (talk) to last version by Ralkarna)"? I understood the earlier reversal, where an existing link was replaced by BorisFromStockdale's new link, but I'm not sure why the simple addition of the new link needs to be reverted. -- JHunterJ 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason is given in Golden ratio; it's his site, and not a WP:RS, and we already have a number of digit sites. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

## twin prime formula

I thought that Modular arithmetic didn't return a negative number (at least with positive a, b, and n). This is why I changed the formula on the Twin prime article. Am I mistaken about how modular arithmetic works? If mod can return a negative number, what 'chooses' whether the result will be a positive 0 to n-1 number, or a negative number? Also, I don't see how it's simpler to have it ${\displaystyle \equiv -m}$ instead of just making it ${\displaystyle +m\equiv 0}$. --Mini-Geek (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I look at it as ${\displaystyle \equiv }$ being an equivalence relation, rather so that ... ${\displaystyle X\equiv -m{\pmod {q}}}$ doesn't mean that X reduces to -m modulo q, but that X and -m reduce to the same class modulo q. And I think that ${\displaystyle X\equiv -m}$ is a little simpler than ${\displaystyle X+m\equiv 0}$, even if they have the same number of symbols. But that's a stylistic difference, and we should probably refer to the source material to see what they use, and choose something reasonable close. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Two of the five external links show it as ${\displaystyle X\equiv -m}$ (one of which was linked in the same edit that the formula was originally added...the closest thing to a source material, IMO), only MathWorld (which I happened to base my change on) shows it as ${\displaystyle X+m\equiv 0}$, and the other two links don't have the formula (at least that I can find). I didn't know about that second meaning of the ${\displaystyle \equiv }$ sign. Knowing that, I guess it's okay to be ${\displaystyle X\equiv -m}$.
I think I understand it, ${\displaystyle X\equiv -m{\pmod {q}}}$, when taken as an equivalence relation, and not merely modulo arithmetic, is the same as ${\displaystyle X\ {\bmod {\ }}q=-m\ {\bmod {\ }}q}$ when taking "mod" as an operator to find the remainder.
Maybe there should be something below the formula noting this difference...besides that, I now agree that this is not a mistake and is a good way to show the formula. — Mini-Geek (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

## Smarandache function and constants

Dear prof. Rubin, please delete yourself the notability tag on the mentioned entry, I am trying to expand the info and add interesting facts and theory that should be browsable within Wikipedia. Please support my activity, because all these destructive actions by pushing NPOV create bad impression of Wikipedia in the academic circles. If there are NO people who constructively input information, Wikipedia will not have any content. p.s. I don't care whether you like Smarandache or not, or whether you consider him notable mathematician. Here we speak about constructive vs. destructive/vadal attitude. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit on Wikipedia community thinking naively that it would be a good safe article to edit given the title. Well I now have an editor accusing me of being a single purpose account and a sock puppet, when I am neither. I am just a new editor trying my best. Is that something that can be done with the uncivil behavior and accusations that a Ned Scott is accusing me of? He apparently has a problem with another editor and now has dragged me into the fray. I don't do edit wars or uncivil behavior like this. I looked at his talk page and back read some of the article older talk page to find that this editor is rude, vulgar at times and definitely does not like QuackGurru. I'm sorry to bring this to you but other than to leave Wikipedia, I don't know what to do with this situation. It is quite nasty there so I am going to stay away. I also posted to administrator Alison who posted to the talk page about keeping the article protected. I was disappointed that no comments have been made about the accusation of Mr. Scott. Thank you in advance, --Crohnie 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

## AP

Thanks for dealing with the block. JoshuaZ 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

## User:216.16.55.1

I have unblocked and reblocked, as the user has made repeated legal threats. Until the legal situation is resolved, or the editor states he no longer intends to seek legal action, the block should remain in place. If the editor withdraws his threats we can of course reblock for a shorter period. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

## Mathematics CotW

Hey Arthur, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Erdos number one? Impressive... Oh and you might want to take your vacation banner down;)

## Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

## Barrett & OR

Just because some editors can't tell the difference between OR and V, doesn't mean the article should suffer as a result. I don't understand you're perspective here. I'm not doing any OR. I'm just verifying information from a source, and no one has contended my conclusions. --Ronz 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We can say that he claims to have written 50+ books, or that he's a named author in however many books he is a named author of, but we can't say that he's actually written 50+ books without doing the WP:OR to see what his contribution is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct. But, the original quote is simply, "His 50 books." We've verified the number of books, we can verify that he's listed as the author of the books though no one has asked. Instead, we've removed it. Why? My concern here is that it seems MaxPont and Levine2112 don't understand the difference between WP:V and WP:OR, and that if we're not clear on what we're doing, the entire article (and all of Wikipedia) is in jeopardy if such rationale is used elsewhere. --Ronz 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
At least MaxPont does admit it was NPOV: [15] -- Fyslee/talk 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

## Problematic IPs

I have just left the following message on the talk pages of the person. I suspect the misuse of these two IPs can justify them both being blocked for 3RR (5 reversions and one talk page comment):

Please register and remember to log-in instead of using at least these two IPs to make tag-team nonsensical edits:

-- Fyslee/talk 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not 3RR yet, as the 4 edits of "134" are consecutive, making only 3 possible reversions. I gave them both 3RR warnings, and no additional changes have been made. As I made the warning, it's probably better for someone else to block if it comes up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Even when "them" is no doubt "one" person? That person is gaming the system and according to the first edit summary was too lazy to log in. -- Fyslee/talk 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It's still only 3 reverts, and the first one is unlikely to be precisely a revert. He/she/they stopped after my warning, at least, so we are forced to WP:AGF. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. -- Fyslee/talk 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

## Sanjukta Paul

I think you might be right--I'm not sure if she actually is that notable. I got sucked in by the media hype around her beating. If you've read the sources I referenced and still don't think she qualifies, I'm okay with it. By the way, I borrowed your archive bot and user boxes for for my discussion page. I hope this isn't a breach of etiquette. Please let me know if it is. Chantoke 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have to request use of the archive-bot; it may not be automatic when including the template.
Go ahead and use the Userboxes (Userboxen?). There was a policy change sponsored by Jimbo that userboxes are to be depreciated, and, with the exception of Babelboxes and WikiProject boxes, and possibly a few others (Admin?), should live in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

## Talk:Hawaiian English

I fixed the redirect to Talk:Hawaiian Pidgin and merged the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To meet your request for a preservation of the page history, I have moved the old article to Talk:Hawaiian Pidgin/Hawaiian English. This move preserves the page history and maintains the old discussion as an archive of the new page. —Viriditas | Talk 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've also added the following information to the top of the redirect:
 The original discussion and page history for this talk page can be found at Talk:Hawaiian Pidgin/Hawaiian English
Please notice the link to the page history and the current page history are intact in the subpage location. —Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

## Yoghurt (again)

Since the discussion on yoghurt talk page appears to have been closed, I'll reply to you here. You said the following:

"It's not a question of national dialects any more; the (h) is not the preferred spelling in any English-speaking country. That's a reason to move the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)"

You are not correct there; as I pointed out to you further up that page the other day:

"I think you have been confused by the use of "yogurt" by the Oxford English Dictionary. "OED English" is regarded as a language variant of its own, and does not entirely reflect common UK English usage. "Yoghurt" is by far the most common spelling in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, at the minimum. - Mark 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)"

Where did you get the impression that yoghurt wasn't the preferred spelling in "any English-speaing country"? - Mark 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

## Bowers-style acronyms

You initiated, apparently, the deletion of this useful information the last time. Now User:Weregerbil is trying to prevent me from putting it in the Uniform polyhedron article, which is the best place for it if it can't have its own article. See Talk:Uniform polyhedron. The way, the truth, and the light 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

## Million

Can you please give me some more information than "wrong again"? WP:V explicitly details that "Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." WP:V is one of the three founding policies of Wikipedia so there needs to be a better reason than your personal disagreement for you to subvert it. I invite you to challenge that policy on the policy talk page if you think it needs to be overturned. Remy B 09:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple mathematical facts which can be cited (such as from OEIS) do not need to be cited. If you like, we can have all WikiProject Numbers aricles reference OEIS. There's no question that the statements you're removing from the article are true; there may be questions of appropriateness or notability, but not of verifiability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you have even read over the list. The majority have been given terms that are not self-evident, and some are even cultural references. Most don't even say what the terms mean, so they could be completely made up. The only ones that are obviously true are the ones that treat Wikipedia as a calculator instead of an encyclopedia (eg. 2^20 = 1048576). Anything not as self-evident as a trivial calculation can rightfully be challenged and removed per WP:V. Remy B 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You can discuss removing individual entries from the list, but removing the whole list on the grounds that some of the entries are unsourced seems to be WP:POINTed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

## viet scientists

I have grave doubts about them too, but just as you say the articles do have context, & in my view they also do assert N by mentioning published works, etc. My guess is that prod as hoax fits them best, but if the tag will be removed, then AfD. I await your advice. DGG 23:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline WP:PROF would require more than just a few publications. But, I'm afraid that's not a speedy criteron. Now, a chemist named Eun Woo Shin clearly exists, but apparently was a research associate at University of Wisconsin - Madison in 2003 and 2004, which is not even a tenure track position. He doesn't seem to be there currently. [16]. I think the {{db-nocontext}} assertion is that the article(s) conflate(s) multiple people of the same name, some with one claim to notability, and some with another, leaving no one notable person. I don't think I agree, but I don't see a claim of notability in Eun Woo Shin. I've got too many AfD's in the fire to start another one now, especially since I'm going to have limited net access from May 25 through May 29. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

## Eun Whoo Shin

Dear Arthur i am impressed with your recent posting Datum on the Eun Whoo Shin talk page and may i suggest you post it here also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/tomcusack as the editor responsible for creating this article has nominated himself to become an admin and i really think that the creater of articles such nonsense and obvious incorrectness as this should not become an administrator. CDuck2 10:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

## The next steps at Stephen Barrett

With the mediation halted, I have put together a compromise in the spirit of good faith here. I know there are other steps of WP:DR we can go through, including another attempt at mediation, but I am hoping we can all settle this amongst ourselves. I would appreciate your opinion on the compromise and/or your ideas of what the next steps may be. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

## Your deletion of my definition of the term "intelligence"

Thank you for your remark. I am new at editing on Wikipedia. I did not have any bad intention at all. If I ask you a question. Did you understand that definition and if you did, would you please tell me what was wrong with it? I will appreciate it a lot. Regards,

You may be a prominent researcher, which that section of the article was intended for. I really don't know, but there's isn't a Wikipedia article about you, which suggests your comments should not be in that section. You might also check WP:AUTO is to what you should be writing about yourself. No offense intended.
If you end your post on Talk or comment pages with ~~~~, it automatically signs your name so others can see who left comments. You don't do that on articles, but it's strongly encouraged on talk pages.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

## Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

## Robin Williams' Half-Sibling

Hi,

I have a problem with the information on Robin Williams' Wikipedia page:

"He has two half-siblings: Laura, on his mother's side, and Todd on his father's side."

Whoever wrote this information in the article is incorrect. I've tried to correct it on May 22, 2007 but it didn't last one day, due to your revision back to the original information.

The inaccuracy lies with "Laura" the half-sibling. Laurie (not Laura) is Robin Williams' mother, not his half-sibling. Robin's half-sibling on his mother's side is named McLaurin Smith-Williams. He was born by Laurie Smith (Robin's mother) before Laurie Smith and her 2nd husband Robert Fitzgerald Williams were married and had Robin Williams.

McLaurin Smith-Williams is currently (as of May 2007) a High School Physics teacher at Christian Brothers High School in Memphis, Tennessee. I know this information because he was my teacher from 1995-1996 and told us on the first day of class. (He even was invited to attend The Birdcage premier in 1996 out in Hollywood but wouldn't go due to his teaching obligations).

I was SGA president of Christian Brothers High School from 1995-1996. Call the school at 901-682-7801 and ask to speak to Brother Chris Englert, who is the current principal, to consult my alumni status if you wish to question my background. I currently serve as a director on the alumni board: http://www.cbhs.org/alumni/Officers.aspx

The link to the school's website faculty list with McLaurin Smith-Williams' contact information is: http://www.cbhs.org/faculty.aspx

His phone number is: 901-682-7801 ex550

Here is another site that includes the family of Robin Williams father, Robert Fitzgerald Williams of Tiburon: http://www.sfgenealogy.com/boards/mcobits/messages/4142.html

After going to http://www.amazon.com and reading an excerpt on page 8 from Robin Williams: A Biography by Andy Dougan, it correctly has Robin's other half-sibling (not Todd) as Lauren (incorrect spelling as it is McLaurin) who is 4 years older than Robin. The link is: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1560252138/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-2920495-9176435#reader-link

Do you have proof that "Laura" is in fact Robin's half-sibling on his mother's side? If so, please cite the reference. I am curious. If there is no reference to cite then there should be no mention of a "Laura" in the article.

Thank you.

Also, on another note, what does reference 3 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5602441) on Robin Williams' page have anything to do with the citation of the preceding sentences ("He described himself as a quiet child whose first imitation was of his grandmother to his mom. He did not overcome his shyness until he became involved with his high school drama department.") in the article? It is a reference to Robin's movie The Night Listener and has nothing to do with this section of the article.

U2clay 06:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of vandalism in the Robin Williams article. If I accidently reverted your changes while I reverted the vandalism, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

## Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue

Arthur, I don't see that one of the A 7 specifications is nn streets or roads, just "person, group of people, band, club, company, or website" , so I removed the db tag. I think this may be one that would need AfD if you want to press it. DGG 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

## Archimedes Plutonium

Before someone lambastes you for being woefully unacquainted with the spirit underlying BLP and unappreciative of the plain consensus that exists for our editing in consideration of such spirit (that is, after all, the objection increasingly levelled at any admin who objects to the speedy deletion of a BLP, although surely not by me), I should note that it is no longer explicity our policy that we accord no consideration to the request of a biographical subject that we delete an article about him; since 1 May, in fact, BLP has contained a deletion standards section to the effect that a subject's desire that his article be deleted ought to be considered by an admin closing an AfD/considering speedy deletion. To be sure, I think that provision to be quite pernicious, and I am not at all sure that that it commands the support of the community at present—its procedural history, in brief: it was added, edit warring ensued, discussion was undertaken, edit warring continued, the page was protected with the offending paragraph, the page was unprotected several days later and there followed soon thereafter sundry other more significant changes, such that the subject requests deletion provision was ultimately forgotten (though perhaps tacitly acceded to)—but it appears that we are not categorically to discount a subject's wishes (neither, of course, as some fail to realize, are we to permit those wishes to override all else).

Relatedly, if you want to be a bit rouge but nevertheless to avoid wheel warring, you might consider undeleting the history of the AP article; a consensus appears to exist at DRV for the history's being undeleted in order that it might be considered by those partaking of AfD, and I do not, further, see any real objections to (at least temporary) history undeletion, which has recently been suggested by Doc as generally a good way to deal with AfDs/DRVs on articles deleted pursuant to BLP. Cheers, Joe 05:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

## 2150

Greetings!

I posted the updates to 2150 on Wikipedia. Could you explain the bias removal to me so I can better expand what the author wrote in his book. I thought I accurately and dispassionately represented his book.

First, you should sign with a handle, rather than an E-mail address. Second, claims of "accuracy" are premature, as noted in my first edit today. Third, "interesting", "remarkably easy", and "ideal" clearly take a point of view, although "Utopia", which is related to "ideal", may be acceptable. But, even if the unnecessary adjectives and adverbs were removed, the paragraph is written as if the society pictured were real. We should only describe it as described in the book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

## problem with rude users

Hello

We have "met" on the discussion about "infinitesimal". I am the one who signs odonovanr and my user page will tell you that my real name is Richard O'Donovan. Even though my name is Irish I am not completely native speaker which explains why my contributions may need editing. Still, we have the problem of a very rude contributer to the discussion, unwilling to understand (or incapable of proving his/her point). People like that could make the whole wikipedia project crash. As you seem to be a long term wikipedian, do you know how we can protect the project against such interference? I don't mind being proven wrong, but I can't accept that we are told repeatedly that we are writing BS and no proof is given. And the discussion is getting us nowhere. And it could discourage other contributions. Odonovanr 08:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of your contributions to infinitesimal, including your last, have been original research, as we define it. However, there is no excuse for rudeness, including my own. Remember that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and "anyone" includes rude people. — Arthur Rubin | (ta;k) 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the last one was not supposed to be original research but more of a pedagogical presentation. But maybe even that should not be in the article. I accept the idea. In the discussion you say the the real reals contain no infinitesimals, hum... well I have noticed that many people (including many mathematicians who haven't really studied set theory in depth) consider that, yes, there are reals which are infinitely close to each other. Of course, this kind of intuition is not followed by some sort of formalisation. Just to say that the real reals are not clearly the same to all. And of course, Nelson and Hrbacek do provide formal constructions where infinitesimals exist in the reals. Thanks for the editing. — Odonovanr 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

## Reverse 3 sign

Mr Rubin, your assumption regarding the acknowledged shorthand for aortic aneurysm was incorrect. This is a fairly common shorthand for the pathognomonic x-ray sign for aortic aneurysm among radiology professionals. Please be cautious in your deletion suggestions in the future (ie. actually look at the references that you are contesting). Thanks. Chantoke 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I included some more easily accessible links from online texts on Amazon. You can enter the phrase to find the locations in these books where the same sign is mentioned. As you are one of the more responsible and proactive members of Wikipedia, I have taken your suggestions very seriously in the past. Please be cautious with your deletion suggestions in the future.

And with regard to your other deletion suggestions--all because you cannot click on a reference does not mean it does not exist. And you definitely are not looking at all of the references when you suggest deletions. Please be more thorough. Chantoke 03:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. I think it would be proper to suggest deletion of most of your definitions of medical terms, when nothing else can be said about them other than in a doctor-patient relationship. I accepted "clean margin", even though your naming clearly violates Wikipedia naming conventions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am always looking to learn. Could you please direct me to a link that shows appropriate naming conventions on Wikipedia? That is to say, I believe if you want to merge 'clean margin' into the 'surgical oncology' article, I am okay with that as I can see your logic. But I am still learning. How would I do that. Thanks. Chantoke 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Okay, I reviewed the information and agree with most of the proposed changes. I must concede your advice was helpful. However, I wish you had contacted me before directly proposing these articles for deletion. I will confine my responses to their 'deletion discussion' pages. Specifically, I am unsure of how to respond to your criticism of my Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue entry. It seems like the consensus is to keep. I can link you to the Hindi page that talks about the article too if that's kosher. Please advise. Chantoke 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

## famguardian link on America: From Freedom to Fascism

I apologize if my actions were spamming. I am relatively new to the community and am ignorant of many of the procedures. I will do my best to behave according to Wikipedia guidelines.

However I believe that I have a case to be made.

Can you please explain to me precisely how http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/IRS/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf does not comply with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL. The pdf article lists reliable references within the article. It is no less reliable than the IRS article. The famguardian rebuttal is in fact a treatise on how the IRS article is NOT a valid reliable source. Therefore, more proof than a .gov domain is requested.

Furthermore, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS itself violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. You cannot verify that something is "generally reliable."

Nevertheless, on the page itself it states "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Therefore, your position is referring to a guideline, not a rule. So I submit that since the IRS article is allowed, a link to the rebuttal of said IRS article should also be allowed. If the rebuttal should not be allowed, then let's remove the IRS link.

Are you going to reply to me Arthur?

You have no case. The IRS site would be relevant as the "official response" to the claims made in the film, even if it were not considered generally reliable. (Note the conditional tense. It is considered generally reliable.) famguardian has no official status nor reputable claim of accuracy. It might be includable as a link or a reference if the film referred to it, but not only because it comments on the film or the claims in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs) 19:11, June 8, 2007

## Tran Hon Viet

Recently you seem to have undone the removal of all the unsourced material from the Tran Hong Viet article by the orignal author. He has recently explained to me that the whole page was a hoax, see my talk page for the full conversation, and i asked him to remove the unsourced material. Seeing as the author actually said the article was a hoax and did himself remove anything untrue i believe that your revert to the presvious version should be undone. I will be interested to hear your views on the subject, thankyou. CDuck2 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Some (marginally) sourced material was removed, while some probable copyright violations (quoted as "Professor Viet only recently returned to his research...") which may also be a quote from Omni, which should also be considered unsourced, were retained. The {{hoax}} and {{copypaste}} tags were also removed. But, I see that most of the removals were of unsourced material, so I'll edit back from the trimmed version. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. i realise it is still a poor article that infringes copy write but at least it doesn't have the blatant unsourced nonsence and is at least mostly factual. Perhaps it could be improved by linking it to the Nguoi Rung or Vietnamese Forest People article instead of the copied and pasted section on them from http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wildman.html. CDuck2 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

## Usenutters

No offense, Arthur, but do you really think your post on the AP AFD is appropriate? Surely it serves to confirm what the "delete" crowd already believes: the purpose is to poke fun at AP. (To be sure, when I first read "usenetter", I thought "usenutter" too!) Phiwum 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But he's a notable usenutter. I see your point, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But I gotta say, he's no James S. Harris. Maybe AP is more notable for historical reasons, but for pure entertainment, I want my JSH! Phiwum 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're probably already aware of this, but I imagine it can't hurt to let you know: AP is now at DRV, viz., here. Joe 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admin, please friendly discuss the issue with User:Mathsci and my only request is that the mentioned user stops the personal war against me. See for his obvious mathematical error at Talk:Andrica's_conjecture, with excerpt taken from Mathsci's post, where he defines wrongly the Smarandache constant as being "the solution of the equation ${\displaystyle 127^{x}-113^{x}=1}$", which is NOT the correct definition, despite of the fact that Smarandache constant happens to be solution of exactly this equation. Person who cannot understand the difference between generalized conjecture, and private case, is hardly suspicious to be non-professional mathematician at first place. Even in case if he is mathematician, still he cannot offend elsewhere me, and conclude "obviously you are either ill or on medication". I have never seen such a mathematician to make math error and then not to confess, if you know him as being real mathematician the mentioned user will be real shame for the math society. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 08:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

## Book 3 (Inheritance trilogy)

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure about how to revert that so I decided to give it my best shot and see what I could do... sorry for messing up and wasting your time in the progress >_< UnaLaguna 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's a single move, any established Wikipedian (one with the move tab) can move it back over the redirect. Once you edited it, an Admin could do it, but I needed to reinsert your talk page comment, and I may have violated the GDFL in doing it.... (It would have helped if I kept the window open so I could paste in the name, if you look at the move to the misspelled "inheritiance" in the talk page history. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn! How has the "move" button been evading me for almost a year!? Well, I now know for future reference... UnaLaguna 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

## Quackwatch

Tahnks for this edit. I suggested it previously, but it was reverted. I think that's a compromise which will make everyone happy. Nice work! -- Levine2112 discuss 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

## North America vs. Central America

Dividing something into North America, South America, and Central America is a bit like the phrase "ATM machine" or "VIN number". I'm not sure how North America the region is different from North America the continent. Perhaps you are thinking of Northern America. -Acjelen 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Different people divide the Americas into different areas. Perhaps we should just leave it as Western hemisphere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

## Conspiracy Theory

You and I seem to have gotten into a revert war on the matter of the additions I made to the section "Examples of common conspiracy theories."

I am aware that your edits are in good faith, that your point of view is that the term "conspiracy theory" is limited to false accusations with an element of myth, an element of paranoia, and an element of mass hysteria.

My position is that the term "conspiracy theory" includes those, but more generally involves the formation of theories by citizen activists and investigative journalists regarding motive, opportunity, benefit, and cover up. Especially involving groups powerful enough to prevent a criminal investigation.

Further discussion of content for the article "Conspiracy Theory" should go on the Conspiracy Theory talk page, where I have already made a more detailed case for my examples.

It is recommended that I advise you here of the "three revert rule." WP:AN/3RR~~ Michael J Swassing 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

## You made me lose faith in all famous mathematicians

Article Fleshlight needs to explain what the hell ILF is. Why don't you fix it instead of just revert warring? SakotGrimshine 12:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete the entire section, or put a {{cn}} tag on it, rather than creating inappropriate links. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
ILN is some kind of company related to the product and it's not explained at all in the article. SakotGrimshine 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

## Talk:Carl Hewitt

Would you please check out this article and it's talk page? [17] Some how it got on my watch page. Something just seems really wrong but I don't know what to do or if anything should be done. It seems from the link above and looking at the user page of Carl Hewitt (apparently his original account from what I can tell), that he was blocked for using sockpuppets. On the talk page I believe is listed at least three accounts he has. I really think that someone much more qualified then I am should take a look at this. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt . Grumble. As one of the named participants there, I'll submit the question to WP:AE, rather than acting directly. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

## Tagging of A Gossipy Crow

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on A Gossipy Crow. I do not think that A Gossipy Crow fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because it is an article about a song, not about a musician. At present WP:CSD#A7 does not extend to songs or other objects. I replaced the db tempalte with a prod. I request that you consider not re-tagging A Gossipy Crow for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

## Cleanup of Talk:King levitation

I spent some time rethreading and putting in unsigned attributions for the page Talk:King levitation. You had mentioned that you found it unreadable. — Wguynes 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

## Judy Wood

If you're going to stick that long title in, can you at least break up the sentence and make it readable? Gazpacho

It wasn't my idea to have it there at all. I was just removing incorrect titles. I'd rather have it gone entirely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

## 11th millennium and beyond

Hello Arthur.

Why my contribution that you are reverted in the page 11th millennium and beyond is inappropriate? --Gildos 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the correct format. (And, as you changed the year, we might need a source as to the correct year.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
As you can see in Great Globular Cluster in Hercules the distance is 20.1 kly, so the message started in 1974 will arrive in ~20'075. But 'Messier 13' have a diameter of 145 light-years, so the first stars will receive the message in 19'930 and a possibile answer could reach the Earth in 39'885, while the farthest stars will receive the message in 20'220 and a possibile answer could reach the Earth in 40'465. Do you agree? --Gildos 07:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

## Vandalism?

Have you seen the logo in all caps it spells ZION. i jsut think that is a little weird, read half the stuff on that page, it's all theories but at least the olympic symbol can be found and seen.--130.108.192.199 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Try editing it into 2012 Summer Olympics. Even if it were correct, it wouldn't belong in 2012. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It's only ZION if you read it sideways. The logo presently in the article looks like
ZO
IN
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but in Hebrew, you read top to bottom. So it would read ZION in the Hebrew style; which i think lends more credibility to the 2012 argument. --130.108.192.199 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern hebrew is right-to-left, then top-to-bottom. Nice try, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about ancient Hebrew? I think that tongue would be more consistent with apocolyptic visions. --130.108.185.192 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew (i.e., the Torah) is right-to-left, top-to-bottom, also, but I'm not sure if the order of "pages" within scrolls is right-to-left or left-to-right. I don't know of any other direction for "ancient" Hebrew. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

## Photo editing

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Photo editing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. DreamGuy 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you put this nonsense on my talk page:
Look, it appears that no one agrees with you. Edit warring is not going to help.
Funny that, as WP:NPOV, WP:ENC, WP:Neologism (and other policies) and the editors who created them all are in agreement with the removal of unencyclopedic information of that exact same sort. All of that trumps the blind reverting nonsense of a couple of editors (yourself included) with a long, demonstated history of not following policy. Placing fake 3RR warnings on my talk page to try to intimidate me won't help either. Considering your history with me -- and specifically of putting false warnings on my talk page for an edit conflict you did not prevail in because the edits you were trying to make were proven to be against policy by a number of other editors, including an admin who had to warn you off from harassing me at the tim, you should never post to my talk page again, especially not with any attempt to try to "warn" me in any pretend official capacity... especially as you are edit warring there yourself. Your actions are simply inexcusable. DreamGuy 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page, but you've been fairly warned. If you choose to ignore the warnings, you may very well be blocked. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, in part. I may not block you if I'm participating in the dispute. However, I can point out your violations (and they are many) in WP:AN/3 or WP:AN/I. Furthermore, my stance in the conflict in Photoshopping / Photo editing appears to be consensus, while yours has not been agreed to by any participating editor. I'm basically required to place any warnings I feel justified on your talk page, if I am to later request admin action on them. (Furthermore, if you look at your block history, I never blocked you. It is hard to tell, with 3 valid blocks, 3 blocks shortened (with the reasoning unclear as to whether they were valid in the first place), and 3 blocks found to be mistaken — but none of them were mine.)
As for domain tasting, it appears that there really should be two separate articles, so our attempts to conflate them were wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, I see a lot of warning templates from you in the history of DreamGuy's page. I can't say I blame him for deleting them, and even moving one of them to your page (as cheeky as that was). I believe it's considered inflammatory to plant templates on established editors. Especially, if you don't mind my mentioning it, a comment like "Ah, yes, this template also fits"... Warning templates never calmed anything down yet. They grate and provoke. Please consider using ordinary human speech for communicating with regular editors, and keeping the templates for anonymous vandals (if indeed for anybody) who need the 1-2-3 progression before blocking. If you feel you are as you say required to place warnings in order to be able to request blocks from other admins later, you're still surely not required to use templates for the purpose. And also, I don't know how to put this appropriately, but... well, I think talking about warnings in terms of requirements for blocks is altogether likely to give the user the impression that blocks are what your communication is about—that it's about escalation rather than resolution. Please don't be offended, I realize these situations are difficult, and DreamGuy is not the easiest user. I hope you'll take my comment in good faith. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC).
Well, actually, I was just about to file a comment about myself at WP:AN/I to see whether I've acted correctly. As for DreamGuy, he's an established disruptive editor, making it difficult to determine whether warnings are appropriate. If he would put himself on a voluntary, but enforcable, 1RR or 2RR, I wouldn't feel the need to make 3RR warnings if there wasn't a reasonable chance he could (temporarily) "win" his argument by acting first if there is only one editor watching the article. He would then claim he was right all along. (See his comment above about domain tasting, where it now appears the best solution is to have separate articles on domain tasting and domain kiting, where, in fact, his position seems to be more-or-less the present situation, but there is agreement it's unsuitable.)
I'm going on a 2-week wikibreak in a few days. We'll see how the articles that he has taken ownership of on when I get back. I think I'll apologize on his user page for my WP:CIVIL violations, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

## 9/11 Conspiracy Page

I removed your statement regarding AQ responsibility as it was not supported by the source provided. The full text of your source seems to appear here where I have been unable to find them citing Al'Qaeda as responsible. --SixOfDiamonds 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

## On WIKIPEDIA POLICY, VANDALISM, IDENTITY GAMES and Smarandache constant (again)

(note: "registered user" in the text below stands for "user with known identity") Dear Arthur Rubin, you have objected that Smarandache constant is not notable and possible not interesting object. Yet, this turns out to be un-true. See this detailed discussion HERE where it comes out that Smarandache constant is possibly definable in multiple non-equivalent ways in case that generalized Andrica conjecture is false. In every case this is an open mathematical problem and is of HUGE interest as it is also related to the mathematical properties of prime gaps. Since the topic is slippery also for professional mathematicians, I think that it will be of some help if such issues are worked out by professional math editors like you, and not simply deleted, or ignored. At least one should be able to correctly define the problem, and explain ALL THE DETAILS on the controversy, and possibly add why the problem is open one, and has not been resolved by professional mathematicians. I think as being also administrator in Wikipedia, you should be more interested in promotion of registered edits in scientific entries, and create immunization of such registered scientists against anonymous attacks, vadalism etc. I hope you will take seriously my complaint from actions of anonymous users such as User:Mathsci. Please be sure I will open my own personal home page at end of July, and possibly I will stop contributing to Wikipedia exactly due to extreme pressure against me from anonymous vandals.

• [1] I have released a lot of useful content on various math topics, some of them being sine-Gordon equation and Davydov soliton, also extensive edits on polaron. Considering my contributions to molecular biology I also did not act in greedy fashion and have released under GFDL a lot of precious high quality image, see Image:Exocytosis-machinery.jpg. UNDER such circumstances I think CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM FROM ANONYMOUS VANDALS IS HIGHLY UNTOLERABLE. I was forced to reply to User:Mathsci virtually to all uploaded content. The same user has NOT been blocked for leading personal war against me, and you didn't take any responsibility after my request. So it is time for you to notify whoever is responsible for taking these measures, or even as admin to propose a Wikipedia rule for giving some rights of registeres users not to reply to such continuous vandal attack by anonymous user. Registered user should NOT be forced or urged to reply for charges of plagiarism by anonymous user, especially in cases where the anonymous user 3 or 4 times in a row accuses in plagiarism. And there should be punishment of such user for tormenting registered user and taking of his precious time.
• [2] I think although anonymous edits are also useful, especially in advanced science topics, to be propoted the registered editing. OF COURSE ALL ANONYMOUS EDITS SHOULD BE TOLERATED! But, my viewpoint is that registered user can release under GFDL his own work directly in Wikipedia. So, this will stimulate GFDL usage by more scientists, and Wikipedia will get a lot of perfect images, tables, graphs and content by those registered users. WHY THOSE SCIENTISTS SHOULD BE AFRAID TO CONTRIBUTE? Isn't it better for them that Wikipedia ensures a kind of protection from anonymous vandals. If registred users with revealed identity have some protection gainst anonymous vandals, then it should be of no trouble for them to contribute. As Wikipedia has rule for no legal actions, such registered users shall not be afraid of legal actions. I see no problem in my proposal, and it is for the good of Wikipedia and the content of it. Of course one may prepare some "Declaration for registered contributors" and give them full list of instructions what is allowed and what is not allowed. So they will not risk to violate the 3 revert rule, etc., etc.
• [3] As I have said before in some of my posts, it is not constructive to accuse someone in BIAS, and to ignore all of his rational and resobanle proposals which obviously from third point of view aim at improving the content of Wikipedia, to make the rules and politics more user friendly, to promote more GFDL released content etc. etc. It is good that there are guidelines for GOOD FAITH, and against BAD FAITH, but I see no editor to ever changed his original attitude for some edit, editor, topic, etc. after given rational arguments for why something is good, bad, etc. And exactly admins should serve as example. Despite of my continuous constructive proposals for proliferation of content, insertion of good information, clarifying slippery details by professionals on the talk pages of various scientific topic, I have seen only spitting over me, and false accusations. Indeed ALL the attack against ME started by User:Afshar after AFSHAR related my name to Smarandache in posts at the talk page of Afshar experiment. My paper was accepted without even knowing any of the people of the editorial board, and was subject to peer-reviewing as in all other journals where I have published. As I have always defended the viewpoint that science should be judged solely on its own merit i.e. correct ot incorrect text, mathematics, etc. I DISAGREE MY NAME TO BE LINKED TO SMARANDACHE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, INSTITUTION, ETC.
• [4] If one is interested to see what are my motives in scientific publishing let him read the Declaration of Scientific Freedom. It is a pure coincidence that I think exactly in the way published in this declaration, but IT IS NOT COINCIDENCE THAT IT HAS BEEN TRANSLATED IN 7 LANGUAGES SO FAR, AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN SUCH IDEALS! It seems that there is growing number of people who see the corruption and commercialization of science. Possibly for you this remains hidden, because you are not competing for PhD in the 21st century, nor you are exposed on severe crimes imposed on the personality by the institutions, etc. It is common rule that you apply with a good project for PhD research, it gets accepted by the government or other institutions that give you scholarship, and when you arrive at the lab where you start the research your topic is CHANGED by your leader, tutor, supervisor, or whoever, just because of un-scientific motives, because noone cares of the importance of your original PhD work. AND NOONE CAN RAISE HIS VOICE AGAINST BECAUSE ALL WE NEED TO GET A JOB, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ETC, BUT WE HOPE TO DO IT ONCE WE GET THE NECESSARY ACADEMIC DEGREE, ETC. SO MANY PEOPLE PREFER TO BE SILENT NOW, TO SPEAK AND DO UNJUSTICE AFTER THAT WHEN THEY GET THE POWER IN THEIR HANDS.
If all the above explanations are not taken seriously by you as admin, nor you care to use your authority to stand behind a good cause, then you can simply ignore my post. I have provided as much of explanations AS POSSIBLE against false accusations against me. I am not a lier, and it is impossible for one to invent a long coherent letter on some moral ideals, in which he does not believe. I post this here driven solely by optimism and good faith, as I did weeks ago on User:Mathsci talk page, where I have requested him to stop, and think critically for the benefit of Wikipedia, and I asked to burry the tomahawk of war. Instead followed a FURIOUS ATTACK AND PLAGIARISM CHARGES!! Now I request your admin powers to propose the requested by me changes of Wiki rules, or just point me the place where I should post my request. Also I requested some admin arbitration for banning User:Mathsci for his malicious actions against me, and not last, to reconsider your attitude for constrictive edits in Wikipedia, and decisions made solely on discussions and scientific arguments, not on affections. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A few quick notes. I will probably reply in more detail later today, but I'm going on Wikibreak within 27 hours, and will have limited, if any, Internet access for a couple weeks.
Uploaded Mathematica graphs. I don't think Mathematica's license allows you to release it under the GFDL, and I did question whether it might be WP:OR, but I think I was wrong. (I only tagged one.)
S, himself: It appears to me that he is best known for naming things after himself and having fringe opinions in mathematics and physics. Those fringe opinions may be interesting, but they are fringe.
S constant 1: It seems to me that the published definition is the positive solution of ${\displaystyle 127^{x}-113^{x}=1}$, rather than the solution of the generalized A conjecture, with the S-A conjecture being that they are the same. There is an ambiguity, but my guess is that S published in journals with fast turn-abound, but without strong proofreading. I can understand that.
S constant 2: Those constants related to the S function cannot all be interesting. I think this may fall under "publish or perish" on S's part.
Bias: I don't think Mathcci is particularly biased, except in favor of creating an encyclopedia. I don't know either of you in real life, but his persona's reputation doesn't seem to be one he would throw away for something he didn't believe in.
SPA: (WP:SPA). I do apologize for considering your account an SPA. You have a number of specialized areas where you are creating and editing article, and I can respect that. That S is one of your interests is a problem, as previous editors have spammed each of his concepts and constants as separate articles, which is just wrong. Many of them are not notable.
As for thesis and paper topics, I didn't have a problem with my thesis topic being modified by the committee or because of funding constraints. I'll look at the declaration later, but I don't think the problem is ubiquitous (sp?).
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Arthur Rubin, I liked very much your reply, and I am glad to find out that you don't consider me self-promotional, or defending whoever without actually believing that there is unjustice that must be undone. I will be collaborative in various suggestions you make, however I shall insist on official warning for banning, or some official punishment of User:Mathsci. If the story ends with some official action against the mentioned user, I shall be left for a little to edit topics I think are of some importance and where I believe I am competent to contribute substantially, yet, if this is not done, I expect Mathsci No.2 to start personal war, etc. At least in PlanetMath after creation of several well-writen articles on various math topics, I think the community now does not think of me as Smarandache's sockpuppet. In Wikipedia unfortunatelly, I am accused literally for every edit which is outside of medicine. As if mathematics is the private area for mathematicians, and not a human enterprise. The same holds for physics (See User:Afshar, Bill Unruh) in Wikipedia. I stand exactly against such *ownershp* of subjects of self-proclaimed *experts* on the basis of having PhD. Believe me, I am well inside this game, and perfectly well know how specialized the PhD topic is. One can measure spectroscopic data of crystals, get a PhD, but virtually understand nothing in QM, or any other physics area. Not to say that most of the data analysis is done automatically by software, and when I ask other PhD students, do you understand what is the meaning of the p-criterion in statistics, or do you know how some parameter is clauclated, they know next to nothing. The only meaning of those PhD or future PhD holders is that there are some astrisks on the plots, and this means that their article will get accepted, and that's all. I don't know how is in mathematics, ot how it was say 20 years ago, I talk about the 2007 year. And in order to have a peaceful existence at Wikipedia, I request for punishment of Mathsci, who even did not appologized for the COPYRIGHT accusations, 3-4 times in a row, plus the arrogant claim "I thought you don't understand how to use MAPLE (software)". What I understand is my own business, and that is why I have requested some immunization of users with revealed idendity against anonymous cowards. From Mathsci posts I got the bad impression that he is completely ignorant in mathematics, but I still did not request him to stop editting math topics, just to stop torment me. regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my addition of a link, under "Common misconceptions", to the article List of misconceptions. Would a link to List of misconceptions#Science perhaps be more appropriate, or would you still not consider that sufficiently relevant? If not, why not? Robin S 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do not respond before you depart tomorrow, I will assume that the matter is not of great concern to you and will re-add the link in modified form. If you have a problem with this, you can always discuss it with me when you return. Robin S 23:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be fine. "Bad science" is not quite the same as "misconceptions of science", but it's close enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Done! Robin S 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

## On William Rodriguez's Conversion

If an audio clip of William stating his conversion is made available on the blog, would that make it a more reliable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abureem (talkcontribs) 19:20, June 28, 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. It would need authentication that it is him. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Praise for the book

Please revert the excessive praise for The Eighth Day of Creation. Also, most of the added material needs to be sourced. Rather than placing a dozen or so [citation needed] tags, I'd appreciate it if the article were edited down to sourced material. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, can you discuss this please?

"In the foreword to this expanded edition of his 1979 masterpiece, Horace Freeland Judson says, "I feared I might seem the official historian of the movement"--molecular biology, that is. If by official he means "authoritative; definitive; the standard against which all others are measured" then his fears are warranted. Detailed without being overly technical, humane without being fulsome, The Eighth Day of Creation tells of molecular biology's search for the secret of life. "The drama has everything--exploration of the unknown; low comedy and urgent seriousness; savage competition, vaulting intelligence, abrupt changes of fortune, sudden understandings; eccentric and brilliant people, men of honor and of less than honor; a heroine, perhaps wronged; and a treasure to be achieved that was unique and transcendent." And in Judson this drama found its Shakespeare."

Martin 84.64.196.240 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

## Invite

Greetings. Since the original logical operator proposal, the WikiProject Logic has grown quite a bit. I'm going to move it as a subproject of the WikiProject Logic. I'll add you to the roster over there. Be, well. Gregbard 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

## Disgrace for mathematicians?

Dear Arthur, please see what your friend Alan does here, also in PlanetMath and various forums like ft-sucks.com under the nickname "Mr.Rusty". I guess you might wish to support him here, where I have again requested his ban from Wikipedia. I think this guy is a disgrace for mathematicians, but in case you want to support him, feel free to do so. I am not surprized by his racist posts, I am afraid what his students can learn from him. Danko Georgiev MD 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

## Fleshlight

What's up with you changing the Fleshlight page every hour? If people wanna contribute, let them contribute.

If you can't stand that, get the fuck out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.229.206 (talkcontribs) 15:16, July 26, 2007 (UTC)

I've only reverted 3 edits in Fleshlight, two of which were clearly linkspam, and the other probably linkspam, in the past month. I don't know why you think it's "every hour". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

## Busy lately?

I don't suppose you could cut me some slack there Art? Gregbard 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just don't see those two specific formal languages as notable. Perhaps they deserve mention in formal language or formal proof. Or perhaps you could userfy them, rather than leave them as up for deletion? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)\
First of all, the notability criterion is destroying the intellectual integrity of the wikipedia. Second, PQ at least is notable for its inclusion in the popular Gödel Escher Bach. The need for FS (logic) was demonstrated at Talk:Theorem. I would like to A) use this and other articles as a means to straighten out many redlinked concepts (see there are a few in there), B) work from the bottom up to some degree. FS is a good start from that perspective.
Lastly, if FS and PQ are not notable, please just get familiar with them. Gregbard 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The need for the models was (loosely) indicated (but not demonstrated) at Talk:Theorem, but I think the "models" belong in the formal theory article, rather than anywhere near theorem. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thinking it over, your argument that that the misnamed FS and PQ are relevant to theorem was rejected. Perhaps they should be merged into formal language? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I never brought up PQ in the discussion about theorem. If you do not understand that the existence of the FS language (heretofore unknown to the authors of theorem), made a relevant point about the fundamental nature of what a theorem is; and, that the point was incorporated into the article, then I don't know what else to tell you.
I'm all for integration, but I wonder about just what your idea is that you are integrating. I.e., I don't think you guys "get" what FS means if you are still hemming and hawing about it being relevant to logic, etcetera. Gregbard 02:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
They are clearly not relevant to logic except in regard syntax and semantics of formal grammars. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to be convinced, but I cannot see it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
FS is an uninterpreted language and a goal of logic is to deal with the syntax of statements/formulae/etc without regard for the interpretations. Therefore it is relevant. It clearly is relevant in my view. I don't think they cluttered up either an elementary logic book, or a class in Symbolic Logic with a lot of non-notable and irrelevant material as they have done in my case. Furthermore, my use of FS in the theorem discussion (which prompted changes to the article) does in fact show that it is useful, and relevant. Be well, Gregbard 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Your statement about "a goal of logic" could only refer to philosophical logic as opposed to mathematical logic. I don't know much about philosophical logic, but I can assure you that nothing in the article relates to mathematical logicl. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the world of logic doesn't end with mathematical logic. Gregbard 06:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

## A little harsh

I'd say Parker is notable. He is the author of one of the best selling books on logic in the country.

Gregbard 07:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's not on amazon.com. It's not in the Library of Congress catalog. Where is it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

try this Gregbard 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC) oh never mind.

Exactly. It's not logic, it's rhetoric. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to just go ahead and inform you that you are incorrect and leave it at that. Be well. Gregbard 07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From m-w.com, definition 1b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion. Seems to fit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily, my just telling you that you are incorrect would suffice. So what's up? I'm getting an asshole vibe at this point. Richard B. Parker, along with Brooke N. Moore is the author of one of (if not 'the') best selling logic book in the country. He published a response to Bradley's Paradox. He teaches Logic in the Philosophy department of CSUC and has for many years. Gregbard 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. Two of the eight reviews (of one of the editions) at amazon.com state that it isn't a logic book. It does appear to be a best-seller, though. (And "Bradley's Paradox", if it were interesting, might have an article on Wikipedia. I can't find a reference which stays what it might actually be, but it appears to be a paradox of meta-logic which can best be eliminated by denying the existence of discrete, countable, concepts. It also appears to have been resolved by Frege around 1915.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think Bradley's paradox is important, you could probably write an article on it, using Parker's books and/or papers (if published) as a reference. (Let me know, and I'll look at it. I doubt I could assert it as unimportant unless I've guessed correctly what it is.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

## Attempt at consensus-building

In an attempt to keep the discussion on the Photo editing talk page in the direction of reaching an agreeable resolution, I have tried to find a slightly different approach. I would really appreciate your constructive criticism on the post that I just made, please see Talk:Photo_editing#Trying_to_establish_some_common_ground. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

## 3RR

I just added a fourth reversion by User:Frikkers on Boerboel. VanTucky (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

## Why did you delete the birthday on May 12th, 1975 I put up?

Are you in charge of 5/12/75? Isn't wiki for everyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.176.70 (talkcontribs) 01:21, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

We only list birthdays of people who have Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And you said 1973, there. Is it '73 or '75? Is there a source which specifies it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

## Prisonplanet

Looks like you're on their bad boy list now as well. See the main article on the front page of prisonplanet.com as well about Wikipedia. · 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I did anything relevant to that article(?). Oh, well. Concur that all links to prisonplanet.com need to be removed as an attack site.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I had assumed that posting with a real name and real (although not primary) E-mail address might lend my comments some credibility. I guess not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we will do better to remove them because they are not reliable sources for hardly anything. verifiability is a core policy. People disagree about exactly what are attack sites, and how they should be handled. I think there are other sites too: infowars.com, prisonplanet.tv, and jonesreport.com. Except in a few cases, links to these should be removed because they are not reliable sources. Not surprisingly, the material they support may be inaccurate as well. And of course there are special problems if living people are involved. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
How do we go about getting prisonplanet.com placed on our Wiki blacklist? · 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Links here: m:Talk:Spam blacklist and m:Spam blacklist/About. Tom Harrison Talk 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Did a quick search just in main namespace, there are actually more infowars links than prisonplanet links. Only a couple of jonesreport hits. These guys are like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their attempts to fight "censorship" of their views will result in a complete blacklisting of their websites. They're not all that swift, are they? - Crockspot 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

## Vandalism?

You used the admin rollback on me therefor you called me a vandal.

How was my edit vandalism? I am not a vandal. I want a reason as to why you reverted me. And I'll say in advance that I have no agenda so don't say "because you're a no good POV Pusher." — Selmo (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's blanking of sourced, relevant information. That's not precisely vandalism, but it's something that can be reverted on sight without further comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

## Edit warring

I'd prefer if you've talked with me rather than ignoring me and treating me like nothing. I already explained why I'm removed the sourced material b(because it isn't reliable) and you REFUSE to listen to me. — Selmo (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

j911Studies and 911Truth are clearly not reliable except, possibly in regard the specific organizations. To the extent that this article is not about those specific organizations, they are unusable. But I'm willing to let that go, as long as equally usable debunking references are listed. (In fact, 911Truth may qualify as an attack site, and would then be unusable even in an article about the organization itself.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. If one page on GeoCities says "I disagree with 9/11 Truth" it's reliable? — Selmo (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the intentional ignorance.... your Quote:"Doesn't appear to be from German"... There is a whole section on its German origins at the article... I'm going to show you a fair and hard-to-miss-unless-you-are-doing-it-intentionally sample from that section: "The term Neanderthal Man was coined in 1863 by Anglo-Irish anatomist William King. Neanderthal is now spelled two ways: the spelling of the German word Thal, meaning "valley or dale", was changed to Tal in 1901, but the former spelling is often retained in English and always in scientific names, while the modern spelling is used in German.

The Neanderthal or "Neander Valley" was named after theologian Joachim Neander, who lived nearby in Düsseldorf in the late seventeenth century.

The original German pronunciation (regardless of spelling) is with the sound /t/. (See German phonology.) When used in English, the term is usually anglicised to /θ/ (as in thin), though speakers more familiar with German use /t/." Please stop intentionally provoking other users and ignorantly dismissing their contributions as "vandalism", or "incorrect." 172.191.100.66 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself as the next entry. Although most of your "from German" edits were clearly incorrect, this one was correct. Please talk to other editors if they are reverting your entries. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As for words borrowed from German:

1. Check the reference, and look at the history on that article, and on the German wikipedia article.
2. For good measure, lets delete all mentions of the German language since you are so anti-German.
3. german.about.com is not "uncredited borrowings from Wikipedia and other Wikis", but about.com, please show me how "mostly" it is such.

172.191.100.66 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If contributing to Wikipedia was illegal there would not be a "edit this page" tab. Please stop removing appropriate external links from Wikipedia, as you did to September 11, 2001 attacks. It is considered censorship and Wikipedia is a vehicle for curiosity and discussion. Since Wikipedia uses history logs, subtraction of links from Wikipedia will not alter the facts. If you continue censoring, the magic that made contributing to Wikipedia fun, will be lost forever. — Darts777 20:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Thank you for your opinion but,

Is vandalize newspeak for contribute? What version of the newspeak dictionary do you use?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Darts777 (talkcontribs)

Now he's warning other editors.[18] They must be running a seminar over at prisonplanet on how to cause maximum disruption for the longest amount of time. - Crockspot 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The link is not particularly good, and probably edited, and the change in "Patrick" is clearly vandalism. As for warnings, that's just weird. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I already reported this joker to AIV. I don't have your patience Art. :)- Crockspot 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Thank you for your warning but,

Is there a list of what the party allows to be edited? Because if not, the whole page should be read-only protected, to prevent these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darts777 (talkcontribs)

Constructive edits are welcome. Name vandalism, links to additional (and edited) videos of the buildings, and other inappropriate information are not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Thank you 'o god of Wikipedia, your list was very educational!

Have a nice day. Darts777 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Loose Change (2007 film)

You are repeatedly deleting material from this reliable source - http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2007/07/27/jprowe0727.html . Please stop vandalising the article. Hereward77 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are deleting this reliable source - http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2007/07/31/jprowe07306.html . Could you rewrite to have both? (And it may be important if the 07-31 source contradicts the 07-27 source.) It's partially my fault, as I didn't see the difference, and assumed you were just moving sources around, adding material which was not in the source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The citation was unnecessary as it is already cited after the following sentence. The only contradiction is that the first source gives Rowe's side of the story. Thanks. Hereward77 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The version of 22:36 is acceptable to me. It has both the "official" claim and Rowe's claim properly sourced. Your previous attempts did not, nor did my attempts prior to the last one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Steven Jones

Hi Arthur!

You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed.

The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy):

On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: Steven,

Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted.

Cordially,

David

On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote:

Hello, David and Peter --

About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere?

This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again.

Thanks, Steven J

Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying?

You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Mark Patterson 434-326-0180 Mark@MarkCentury.com

If the book states it's "peer-reviewed", or the publisher (if a reputable publisher) says it's peer-reviewed, we may include that, unless there is notable opinion to the contrary. Personal correspondence from the authors fail WP:RS (or whatever the current location of that policy is). Personal correspondence from the editor fails WP:V. If the editor publically says it's peer-reviewed, that's almost enough for some comment on peer-review.
As, at least I, find it improbable that the book really is "peer-reviewed", we need some source we can WP:ATT. You'll note that none of us have (recently, anyway) tried to include "non-peer-reviewed" in the description of the book, although, I, at least, believe that to be the case. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Salvnaut=MarkCentury? Time for a WP:RFCU? Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought it was the anon I was reverting on controlled demolition hypothesis and building implosion. I need to keep my reverts of nonsense straight. Salvnaut could have been the anon, but I don't think he's MarkCentury. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I find it very strange that SalvNaut came around and started performing reversions right after Mark got blocked. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

## Deutsche [Lehnwort im]-->[Loanwords in] English

(EDIT: Oh, ok i understand some of your edits, not the following though.) Then if we are going to rename Machpolitik to Power Politics, lets rename Realpolitik to Real politics/Realistic Politics... The article was created by an IP(65.129.4.139) in 2003 anyways, which is something to take into account since now IPs are not allowed to create articles, and IPs anyway are prone to plainly just adding inaccurate information. Machtpolitik is a german loanword, and its still used, i say like Realpolitik(which was not created by an IP), to move Power politics to Machpolitik. because with the term power poliotics it could be coined by different meanings other than the one we mean. like say.... a video game could be named "POWER POLITICS" just for dramatic weight, and so forth,

Article on dictionary.com clearly showes Machpolitik and has no entry for "power politics", "power politic", etc.

Machtpolitik

n. power politics

([19])

or from this definition in a book called German English Words at Google Books Machtpolitik "power politics": international diplomacy in which each ... The English term power politics is a loan translation of Machtpolitik. Also, im not sure if you know this, but Loanword is ironically itself a borrowed word (a loanword) from German. 172.191.100.66 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Loan translation" is not the same as "loanword". As for which "politik" words are used in English, m-w.com reports:
• "power politics" – politics based primarily on the use of power (as military and economic strength) as a coercive force rather than on ethical precepts
• "machtpolitik" only in the paid version
• "realpolitik" – politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives
This suggests that "realpolitik" is a borrowed word which is actually used in English, while "machtpolitik" is not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Loan translation=Calquex (obviously a loanword), and i was not understanding that concept until i saw the article on Calque. But still, it doesnt even say anything for Machtpolitik except "Buy our FULL VERSION NOW!"... and it was originally machtpolitik and i, albeit probably hopelessly, still think it should be moved to it with strong emphasis that Machtpolitik has since been translated into English as "Power Politics," like Realpolitik.172.191.100.66 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

### Spitz

I didnt really add anything that needs any sources... I was reverting a vandal IP who deleted material without explanation. 172.191.100.66 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

### "Cheque"

The article "Cheque" was originally at Check, and by checking the history you clearly see the earliest edit was a vandal moving it to Cheque to further his point-of-view. (History list) (actual edit on which it was moved) 172.191.100.66 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. Unfortunatly, there was a ruling in a similar article to the effect that keeping a "stable version" is more important than following Wikipedia naming guideline in general (so, even if the name should be check, that it's been at cheque for a few years dominates.) Perhaps it was cat flap. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

## Discussion at the Quackery article

I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. I figured you might be interested since you were involved with the original discussion on this section. Elhector 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

## 2029 Anniversaries

I'm not trying to be rude, but why did you get rid of all the anniversaries on the 2029 page. Other future years have anniversaries, why can't this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.236.27 (talkcontribs)

I believe the current consensus is that no anniversaries should be listed unless a specific celebration/memorial is planned. I only watch a few of the year articles, so I'm only attempting to maintain that in those articles. Perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may explain why some articles have anniversaries but not others. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

## You are not supporting the project

When I saw that you had signed up tp support the logical operator project, I was pretty happy to see some support. Now I am wondering about the different "good faith" interpretations of "support." If the bot does not tag those articles the work is going to fall on my shoulders, because no one else is going to do it (as we have seen). If the bot is stopped for good, that's potentially thousands of articles that I will have to tag all by myself. Furthermore, there really is a substantial component of an organized Wikiproject which no one will be able work on without the assessment tags. Do you understand that I am justified in being very upset with you and the rest of the math cabal? You are hurting the Wikipedia more than you are helping with these actions. This latest move by yourself, and zivka is a "no compromise" strategy. You can see that I am trying to achieve a compromise here. So what are you going to do to help the project move forward? Not tagging at all is not an option. Making me do it manually because you guys are territorial on Wikipedia is just disgusting.

I am going to submit whatever list consists of the original minus any category that people have communicated that they don't want (as stated). There is no better compromise for you people. I will submit it with a good faith intention, and having done more than I needed for due process. Gregbard 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Having reconsidered, I think we need to establish a list, and then establish consensus that it should be used. But, not tagging articles whict aren't related to the project, whether or not in related categories, is always an option. "Due process" would require deleting all the bot-added tags and starting over. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agreed with you up until that last sentence. Respecting due process would mean that you, Zvka, and the rest accept that you missed your well publicized and more than sufficiently lengthy opportunity to have input into the process. I am not the only one who was waiting for this. The fact that we are discussing it again means that due process means nothing unless it benefits a few complainer's own postiton. It seems to me that they can do the tedious work of removing the tags just as easily as myself putting on tags. The difference is that I went through the process from the start. Gregbard 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't agree that discussion only in (a subpage of) WikiProject Logic is adequate notice for something that would have tagged over 5000 talk pages. I don't know if you should have notified WikiProject Mathematics, but you probably should have put a notice in the Village Pump (which I probably wouldn't have seen).
As a practical matter, I think the agreed untagging would require then retagging using the reduced list of categories, but including the categories already tagged, so it might be simpler just to untag all and start over. I guess we'll have to leave that decision to the bot operators. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I want you to think about what would happen if we operated on that "principle" all the time. Due process means something. You can find new venues for announcement all day long. If after the whole thing is said and done and there are still complainers, the thing that is done in moral society, is move on without them, and invite their increase participation the next time. Otherwise anyone can hold any group hostage. Some people complain no matter what. At some point the group must be able to move forward. Gregbard 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'm still shooting for August 11, so if you guys feel strongly about excluding categories, you should demonstrate that by then, or cry about it later (not to be mean, but at some point it really has to be that way). Gregbard 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that's just wrong. The group is Wikipedia, not WikiProject Logic. And I'd have to say that consensus as to this list was not obtained on WikiProject Logic, as the notification was on a subpage. Wikipedia operates on a consensus, not "do it and wait to see if someone objects". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The notice was in three places including the portal page which gets general readership. I have seen this situation before in the use of due process. Would you believe that the notice was adequate if the consequences were to your liking? Be honest. I think we have also forgotten the point that these tags are on talk pages. There is no reason to object to them at all. WikiProjects have not traditionally asked permission from others to include a page in their project. This phenomenon is entirely a product of territorialism that has no place here. Gregbard 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't watch the logic portal. (In fact, I'm not sure I understand what a Portal is supposed to be.) My mistake. However, there are some changes to articles and templates which I agree are accurate, but have reverted because they were inadequately sourced, so I would like to think I would object on the grounds of inadequate notice even if "consequences were to" my "liking". I've also deleted an AfD which was piggybacked on one of mine, even though I thought the article should have been deleted. (Actually, that was PQ (logic), so you might have noticed. I created the AfD on FS (logic).) You may draw your own conclusions.
As for your assertion that WikiProjects don't ask permission to include pages in their projects, that's true. It's also true that, as many of the larger categories clearly do not fall within the scope of the project, WikiProject Mathematics would probably have "authorized" (suggested, whatever the appropriate term is) using a bot to remove some of the categories from the project. I don't understand philosophical logic (or whatever non-mathematical logic is called); in suggesting some of the categories, you've established that you don't understand what those categories are about. This suggests, as some have done in Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Logic, that you should have placed a notice on the talk pages of the categories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"I don't watch the logic portal." It seems you do not understand due process. It's not about YOU. As far as the community is concerned there has been more than adequate due process. Your assertion that I should have tagged 100 categories is an an unreasonable expectation. It would have defeated the purpose of using a bot. This is a demand for special treatment beyond what is necessary, or appropriate. This is especially true, given the nature of talk pages and project tags. This whole mess is a product of unnecessary, unhelpful, territorialism. Gregbard 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't see that exclusion list growing at all.
Well, you should (in that sense) requested a bot to tag the 100 categories (actually category talk pages) for possible tagging into the WikiProject, rather than just tagging them. (In fact, I'm almost certain there was an option for the bot you requested add the pages in the category to do so.) Alternatively, you could edit your .js file to include a button to include the text at the bottom of the talk page of the page in question, and then right-click each of the categories to open it in a new window, and click that button. A little setup work, but it would make it clear who was proposing the measure. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What can I say? I agree with this just fine. I had no idea there were these options. I certainly have no aversion or lack of patience to go through such a process. However, I still think that it is overkill. It has not proven to be necessary up to this point for any other groups. I am starting to believe it is a cultural thing among mathematicians. I still see no reason we can't move forward on a de-tagging, and a tagging list by 11 August. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. Gregbard 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \leftarrow }$I just have a comment for Greg. All of the math project tags have, to my knowledge, been added manually by members of the project(tedious yes, but most of our rated articles have rating field importance and a comment...something a bot cannot do). Why don't you tag the key articles automatically and leave the questionable ones for the editors to add later as they encounter them.--Cronholm144 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let me know what categories you think should be left out, and we'll proceed on 11 Aug as planned. Gregbard 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

## Vote stacking

I concur, which is why I quickly recanted. Djma12 (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

## Truth vs. Conspiracy

There is no one name for the group of conspirators who challenge the truth behind 9/11. The article's title was misleading and inaccurate, and I will redo the page the next chance I get until you give me a valid reason for keeping it at truth.

Alex. --Alegoo92 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"911 Conspiracy Movement" is just wrong; nobody calls it that. You can propose the article for deletion, but renaming it to a name which nobody uses violates WP:NAME. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

## WP:POINT, and Lake Forest

First of all, thanks for noticing the page moves I made to the two Lake Forest town articles -- as I said in the edit summary, I made them to generate attention and discussion, and I appreciated yours as much as the other discussion. Also, I certainly don't have any objection to your reversion of the moves; they were based on a proposal, and one that, as I expected, does have some folks who object to it, so it's right for the articles to remain at their old names until/unless the proposal gains consensus.

However, there was one comment you made that I am confused by. You said that, "If he hadn't propagated the double redirects, I would have considered it "good faith"". What did you mean by that? I did change the targets of the pages that redirected to the (now a redirect) old name, because otherwise they would be double redirects, which would make it harder for visitors to find the page. I see how this means there are more edits needed to revert the move -- is that what you objected to? If so, I apologize, and if you haven't reverted the redirects, I'll certainly do that myself, now. My intention in snapping the redirects was both to generate more edit summaries in the hopes of gathering more attention, and to avoid broken double redirects that could confuse users. I look forward to your further explanation of what about my snapping the redirects you objected to. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been better if you'd left the double-redirects broken, as it was a test proposal, although reasonable people could differ on that. Your edit summaries for the double-redirect term confused me. By the way, is "snap" a tool or script you use? In context, the term is unfamiliar to me. I could always use tools, even if I haven't applied for AWB access. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. "snap" is a metaphor from rubber bands -- when you have one thing pointing to another thing pointing to a third thing, "snapping" means changing the things to point directly. If it's not in Wikipedia:Glossery(sorry about the spelling), it should be. Have to run, may say more later. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

## Removal of discussion

Please do not remove discussions from article talk pages like you did to Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Your reverts have been reverted as vandalism and will be reported as such if you continue. 196.207.32.37 17:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I did not intend to get you into trouble as this does seem to be a genuine misunderstanding which is partly my fault. I will try to give better explanations in the future but do want to urge you not to use words like forgery and fabrication which has legal connotations and tends to push some buttons. ;) I don't really edit that much and this IS a shared IP, shared as in used by a number of people all at the same time. 196.207.32.37 01:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

## DreamGuy's talkpage

Hi, Arthur. Since you've told DreamGuy that people can't be banned from his page "by him alone",[20] I'm doing it; I'm writing to IPSOS to tell him he doesn't get to post on DG's page anymore, and strongly suggesting to Dicklyon also that he should desist. No matter how riled-up you are against DreamGuy, I'm sure you don't mean to condone outright trolling and provocation on his page. And what, if not trolling, is it to post those crap templates on a long-time contributor... ? [21] [22] [23]. With "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia"... ? That's never a good faith warning. It's more like poking with a stick at an irascible editor in the hope of getting him to say something blockable. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

And, actually, it's been long established that people can tell people to stop posting to their talk pages if they are doing nothing that has any possible value to the encyclopedia and those who violate it are causing harassment. I would consider Arthur Rubin's edits as well to fall well within that standard, as his very first communication with me was an over the top aggressive threat to block for the simple matter of not doing what he wanted to do on an article he was edit warring and eventually lost on. All of his communications since then, other than a half-hearted apology for some tiny fraction of his behavior has been nothing but more of the same. As he has made it clear that nothing he has to tell me on my talk page (including the bogus claim that I can't ban people from it) is any real attempt to improve the encyclopedia and is solely to continue his personal conflict, he is blocked from my page as well. Admins don't get any special exemptions from the rules against harassment, and in fact they out of anyone should not be doing it in the first place, so Arthur here doesn't get off free either. DreamGuy 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The only one who has committed abuse is DreamGuy, but he's already been told, so there's no point in telling him again. And I've never been blocked.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, DreamGuy removed one of his posts, and it was restored by 66.82.9.79, who seems to be following him around, harassing him and trolling, so I removed it again. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well. I did try to write you a reasonable message in a reasonable tone, Arthur. I'm sorry if I didn't succeed. I was hoping you'd see your way to responding to me more... specifically, somehow. You really don't think it abusive to repeatedly slap those dumb-ass newbie templates on DG's page? Bishonen | talk 10:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
Well, actually, DreamGuy acts like a newbie in regard ignoring clear WP:CONSENSUS when he claims to think it violates policy, guidelines (such as the WP:MoS) when he thinks it disagrees with his view, and generally ignoring the opinions of others. I tend to agree that {{uw-3RR}} needs some more work, but the other templates I've placed on his talk page describe, in as polite a way as reasonable, what he's actually doing, and asks him to stop doing it. I've reverted the reinsertion of warnings and polite requests from his talk page after he's deleted them, as he's certainly allowed to do it, under WP:USER, as unwise as it may be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

## Cathcart AfD

the primary proponent (here) has been unable to produce a WP:RS, in spite of claimed knowledge of the field. - I had never intended to contribute to Cathcart's article, before the political ambush AfD, much less this past week. More discussion and guidance to specific policies concerning PhD theses is requested for an unusual case, where the *summary material* (Cochrane Collection reviews) is considered extensively reviewed and reliable, the author is considered reliable, but the author's more detailed underlying material presented in the thesis isn't(?) guidance request, 1st added paragraph, re Hemila's 2nd PhD. Here I think the various review conditions (Cochrane, subsequent public comment, PhD review in a known sensitive topic area) with a reliable author are substantial. Thanks.--TheNautilus 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "the primary proponent" was supposed to be you. IMHO, a Ph.D. thesis falls under our self-published guidelines, so it would only be reliable if the person, is, at the time of publication, a recognized expert in the field. This is unlikely in the case of a Ph.D. thesis, but not logically impossible.[1] The meta-analysis was separately published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is considered a Wikipedia:reliable source.
I have more AfD edits than Pierre or Lumos3 at that point; Lumos3 and I each had one previous minor edit. Hemila, already MD+PhD and associate professor, has been a Cochrane reviewer for Vitamin C & respiratory diseases from some time in the 1990's and looks like the heavy lift author by 2004, given the amazing overlap between his 2006 thesis (original work requirements?) and the previous Cochrane review even though Douglas was listed first. Hemila is first listed in 2007 for the Cochrane review for C and pneumonia. Simply, I consider the (University reviewed) wealth of detail in Hemila's 2006 thesis (2nd PhD) superior and more up to date, again Cochrane vetted in part by overlaps with Hemila, Louhiala (2007, C + pneumonia, favorable). I haven't had a chance to go over any free version of Douglas, Hemila (2007, C + colds, again), looks pretty similar on summary (My primary criticism is that their negative conclusions are not clearly demarcated in press reports as effectively terminating at 4 to 6 g/day for *general* populations, often without mentioning that substantial subpopulations *are* recognized as measurably benefiting at 1-6 gram/day or another mainstream test at 8 oral grams per day (not properly divided) with some positive indications according Hemila, or being well below Cathcart's B-T "mega-macro" ranges, 20-200+ oral grams per day.)--TheNautilus 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

### Notes

1. ^ My Ph.D. thesis was used as a reference in a paper by Jon Barwise. On the other hand, I may have been considered a recognized expert in the field at that time.

This edit is a particularly blatant abuse of your admin powers. Admin powers are not supposed to be used to assist your side in edit wars. I know you simply have not followed that policy, as you abused your powers in the past to do a block that was motivated out of spite instead of any real reason, but you'd think by now that you'd start to worry about trying to play straight. Please undo your edit before someone else is forced to undo it for you. DreamGuy 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I also think it would be better if you didn't write on my talk page, as long as I am not allowed to comment on your egregious errors on your talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, I think he's right; I was appalled, too. You've given him one more distraction to pick on. And your comment suggests that his incivility is rubbing off on you. I recommend you unprotect the page and not use any admin powers in any dispute in which you are involved. Dicklyon 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't protect the page, and wouldn't have, as I don't think the edit warring had gotten to the point where the 3 or 4 main contributors couldn't keep his erroneous edits in check. However, I'm not going to let an edit in place which could leave Wikipedia subject to trademark violation lawsuits. I think reverting to the last non-erroneous edit from DreamGuy may be a reasonable compromise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have mis-remembered the sequence. Still, you should probably ask the guy who protected it to decide what to do. Dicklyon 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I now see that it was User:Nihiltres who edited, protected, and reverted. He should have just picked one role, too; editor or admin, but not both. Even when he realized his error and reverted he left evidence of bias for DreamGuy to use as a distraction. It's too bad, because all these little things just give him something to use to avoid facing his conduct problems. Oh, well. Dicklyon 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## Phil Rizzuto

I haven't found a source that specified time of death. However, I've found a lot of sources that stated "late Monday night" and more recent ones stating he died on Tuesday. In my mind, neither statement is contradictory. The Major League Baseball website lists his date of death as the 14th. I've changed the death date and cited it accordingly. As we both know, death dates are often incorrect early on. If you've got a better source, please revise the death date – and include the source. Cheers Rklawton 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## Freedom of the Press is Necessary for a Democracy to Avoid Tyranny

Dear Arthur Rubin:

Our founding fathers knew implicitly that power corrupts and they gave us protection from unwarranted searches and they gave us freedom of speech to serve as a counterweight to tyranny..

If I were you, I would think very carefully about this quote because it relates to the type of country that your grandchildren may well live in if you and I do not take steps to protect our freedoms today:

"AN EVIL EXISTS THAT THREATENS EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THIS GREAT NATION. WE MUST TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT OUR DOMESTIC SECURITY PROTECTS OUR HOMELAND." --- Adolf Hitler

Yes, Arthur, this quote was not said by President Bush-- it was said by Hitler, in an attempt to use fear to manipulate and control... He later forged a dictatorship out of a free election using the Reichstag as an excuse.

Please don't think it can't happen here.. because it can when people suppress free information and when they won't seek the truth..

This is the mindset that your have been sold-- You are an intelligent person-- don't buy it.

Wake up. Think about it... These are the people who will turn against YOU first-- once they have used you as a spinmeister..

"Homeland" security searched my checked baggage at Long Beach a few weeks ago-- Why? I am a 51 year old housewife and former professor-- and they have me on their watchlist.... This is what Hitler did to his citizens, using fear as the excuse. He later started killing them...

No one thought it could happen in Germany and it did. Just look at the history of the Bush family and their deep post wwII connections to IG Farben and Nazi flight capital--- and you will see the truth of what I am saying... (google John Buchannan-- you will see that he was arrested for his research-- it is happening here...)

God bless you and I hope He opens your eyes before it is too late for our precious nation.

Freyfaxi 14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## 9/11 Article

You reverted my edit, citing the talk page, without actually having contributed anything to the talk page. Please refrain from this antisocial behaviour, or alternatively you could go to the talk page and become the first person to actually adress my arguments. Damburger 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page is clear. Terrorist is used by all reliable sources. If you could find a source that said that it wasn't a terrorist act (even among those who say it was committed by agents of the US Government), then we would have to add a caveat. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion on the talk page is obviously not clear, because you have TOTALLY missed the point of my objection. Either participate properly to the talk page, or kindly stay away from the article. Damburger 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
None of the other editors commenting on the talk page see your point, either. What is it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Take it over to the relevant talk page please. And you are mistaken about 'none' of the editors there failing to see my point. Damburger 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Name one who sees your point, then. I don't see the need to say "I concur with the above clear consensus" on the talk page in order to act on it in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rklawton and Melsaran clearly do. Are we even reading the same talk page? Damburger 16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Some have objected to "Islamic terrorists", but I see no objection to "terrorist" in the talk page, other than yours. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you haven't read the page. Goodbye. Damburger 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
They only posted less than an hour ago. Consensus is still that you're wrong, but, if it really is policy (although I don't agree that it is), you may have a point. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not policy, it's a guideline. Guidelines may have exceptions, and this is clearly a good candidate for an exception. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You've gone from "there is nobody agreeing with you on that page" to "the consensus is still against you". Now suddenly policies (which are treated as such elsewhere) are guidelines? Perhaps we should take this up on the 9/11 talk page where it belongs? Damburger 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of them posted in the previous hour, and the MoS is not policy. This one, IMHO, does not reflect policy. It certainly doesn't reflect any policy mentioned on the talk page at that time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

## Blanking of External Links section from WTC collapse article

You have blanked a clearly legitimate section of the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article and gave no good reason. This is a warning. If you vandalize anymore 9/11 Truth articles I will inform the administrator intervention against vandalism list of your activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.62.150 (talkcontribs)

You are in no position to complain. You happen to be writing to an admin who is just applying policies against using non-RS links. -- Fyslee/talk 21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That edit was rather pointy I guess. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

## Hello

Hey, how's it going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.143.104 (talkcontribs) 15:28, August 18, 2007

## List of numbers

In List of numbers, what is your basis for restoring the statement that lower case φ, which normally denotes the golden ratio, also denotes the golden ratio's reciprocal? This was thoroughly hashed out in the Golden ratio article a long time ago. While one can find stray examples of upper case ф being used for the golden ratio and lower case φ being used for its so-called conjugate, standard mathematics usage today is the reverse. Also, the List of numbers should conform to Wikipedia's articles on the relevant subjects. I didn't want to revert you without asking. Finell (Talk) 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I changed the reciprocal to ${\displaystyle {\hat {\phi }}\ \mathrm {or} \ \Phi }$, leaving φ for the Golden ratio. If I didn't, please fix it. ${\displaystyle {\hat {\Phi }}}$ just isn't right. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with phi-hat for the reciprocal; that is what I meant to question, but did not make clear. The Golden ratio article uses Phi (uppercase) exclusively, as do most other sources (especially relatively recent ones) that I have seen. I'll wait for your response before doing anything. Finell (Talk) 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "Phi-hat", which I corrected to "Phi" or "phi-hat". I don't have have any objection to removing "phi-hat", although have seen that for the actual algebraic conjugate of the golden ration, which is ${\displaystyle {\frac {1-{\sqrt {5}}}{2}}}$. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You just pointed to another problem with the Golden ratio article, discussed long ago on that article's talk page. Some (e.g.,

) define golden ratio conjugate as

${\displaystyle \Phi ={1 \over \varphi }=\varphi -1\,.}$
Others say the term conjugate should be used only for what you call the algebraic conjugate, that is, the negative root of the defining quadratic equation. Perhaps you could contribute some enlightenment on this and other matters in the Golden ratio article. Finell (Talk) 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

## Question

I have a question that I hope you can answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 15:26, August 18, 2007}65.102.143.104 Yes? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

## My edits

Dear Arthur,

I would like to direct your attention to my talk page for further discussion on what appears to be an unutterable misunderstanding. Consequently, I hope to see what can be discussed about this there will be most elucidative.— ignis scripta 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

## You made an edit against consencus

You removed a paragraph on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page against consensus. There has been an ongoing conversation on this topic. If you would like to contribute i suggest you head on over to the talk page under the heading "Edit reverted without cause.". this paragraph has been evolving all day. And while your efforts are welcome, please do not just delete the work which several wikipedians have been contributing throughout the day. While there may be some sections with dubious sources (i didnt check them all) you deleted at least one which references FEMA's on report and a quotation from it. Debeo Morium 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you seem to think everyone is questioning the sources. While it is true throughout the day we have debated the wording (and as a group it has evolved to its current state) i dont see a single person who disputes the sources themselves. You need to keep in mind some comments were made early in the day when the text was very different to what it is now. Look at the history and you will see that the current wording was arived at as a group, and at no point were the soruces in dispute. Debeo Morium 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources. I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal". The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled. I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert. . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that. He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

## RCF

What is RCF? 218.133.184.93 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory of real closed fields. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In what sense are the reals consistent? 218.133.184.93 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is Th(R) not consistent? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is Th(R)? In what sense are the reals consistent? 218.133.184.93 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd to say that an object is or is not consistent. Th(R) is the theory (mathematical logic) of the reals. As the theory is decidable, it is consistent. Peano arithmetic is what is what is not provably consistent in the results you're aping without understanding.. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that while the consistency of the axioms of natural numbers is shown, the consistency of those of reals isn't. Isn't that correct?218.133.184.93 06:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. In any system complicated enough to describe the first-order theory of the reals, the consistency of that theory can be shown. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

## A little help

Hi, im new here, so im not sure the proper way to go about this. But the following user has been responsible for a string of vandalism. I used the warning templates for each incident of clear vandalism i could find, but he has not stopped. I dont know the proper way to address an administrator to block him or take whatever action is needed. I hope you can either resolve the issue or point me in the right direction. Thanks Debeo Morium 08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'll answer for Arthur. The official place is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV for short). However, I had a look myself and blocked the user, so you don't need do any further action. By the way, you should sign the warning template you leave on the user talk page. I often forget to do so myself, but it is helpful. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, huge help for the future. Debeo Morium 10:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

## User:Igni

You can remove User:Igni from your "Watch list". You have successfully driven this user, who contributed substantial content to articles such as Weimar Classicism, from the project. — goethean 17:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see him go, but he needs a content-watcher. He may have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia, but his recent contributions have made content changes in the guise of style or grammar correction. He doesn't seem to realize that synonyms are not necessarily replaceable. Where I could figure out what he was objecting to, (which is 2 of the 4 articles I've corrected him in), I've replaced what he wrote with a corrected version which still meets our content standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

## Why is the FEMA quote SYN

Id really love to know why you think the FEMA quote is SYN. Seems pretty cear to me that fema was baffled by the sulfur. Id love to hear why you think this is SYN either here or on the talk page. If it is ill remove the quote myself (im not a conspiracy theory crusader, i only want both sides fairly represented cause i feel both the official story and the conspiracy theory story has their holes). So please, share your unique incite on this, because i either dont understand SYN, or am entirely missing something int he FEMA report (which i must have read 5 times since this debate started). Debeo Morium 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting it next to Jones is SYN, in that it's implying that FEMA supports Jones, while it just shows FEMA is incompetent. But we have a good example of that in their Katrina coverage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, i was wondering if i could do an infobox for your article to improve it - kevinbocking 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. What do you have in mind? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was thinking of putting in an infobox for your article to improve it, and I was just wondering what you think of that. - IamMcLovin 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

## Revert to 1000000000 (number)

Hello,

What was misleading about my edit? It gives equal emphasis to both the short and long scales, whereas the current version gives preference to the long scale. --DCrazy 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

## Addition to Virtual Reality page

Dear Mr. Rubin,

I had added a link to virtual reality page. It was removed by you. I will appreciate if you please read it before removing it. It gives another perspective on the issue of virtual reality and was published as an editorial article in Times of India one of the leading papers of India. i hold the copyright and hence I thought the readers will be interseted in it.

Please undo the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.138.29 (talk) 06:55, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It's not a particularly interesting link, but you've added it under enough different IPs that I can't confirm that you've violated WP:3RR, although I'm personally certain you have. I can't fix it for another few hours under that rule. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

## Tom Cryer

On the Tom Cryer page, I don't believe my revisions need explicit sources because the information is generally well known to anyone familiar with the material. Please list specific occurances of the necessary citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.247.77 (talk) 17:30, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Your statements about the tax code, if implied to be fact, are just wrong. If they are to be attributed to Cryer, they need to be sourced to someone quoting him as saying them. The minor changes that Famspear corrected were clearly wrong in your version. Please discuss on the article talk page, before making major changes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

## Why did you delete the Bowel Tolerance article?

Why did you delete it?

There was no consensus on it, most people were saying to keep it.

It's a very fundamental aspect of vitamin c megadosing. I think if every episode of a tv programme can have its own page then you have NO RIGHT to undo all of the work on bowel tolerance.

Anonywiki 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because of the AfD result. If you don't like it, the correct way to re-create the article is at WP:DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

## Discussion

You directed me to the talk page here: WT:MOSNUM#<font color=darkblue> vs links, just letting you know here since you haven't replied there --Random832 13:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

## ODP

Do you edit on ODP? Your name sounds familiar. --Kmsiever 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I think you're my mentor over there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

## Prime number

Hello. I would have reverted all of Wlod's edits. As it is you now have Z as rational numbers. Rational integers might be OK, but at the moment some bits of the article are in a bit of a mess. Why not just revert all of Wlod's edits to save time? Best,Mathsci 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to the pre-Wlod version myself. As far as I can see from the diffs, he/she did not make any improvements to the article. --Mathsci 23:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

## Your reversion of my edit to Morgellons [24]

Hi,

I would like to know why you reverted my edit that inserted verifiable text to the cited source, back to non-verifiable text to the cited source and used the argument POV. Thanks, Ward20 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were just a letter, it would not be a WP:RS, so calling it a "letter to the editor" is misleading. Quoting the exact text is fine, but calling it a "letter to the editor" is not without explaining why we consider it worthy of note. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I need to think about this. I would like to post my next revision here for your review if you don't mind.Ward20 01:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

## WP:TROLL

Hi Arthur, rather than trying to pull the mountain to Mohammad, it is probably easier to let the troll play his little game. It's quite obvious that in the last nine months he isn't interested in being constructive and in fact "enjoys" his little game. So rather than stroke his ego most of us are ignoring him. Shot info 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

## 2010s

Please explain your revert and replacement of the future tag on 2010s. I know you're an experience editor and an all-around smart guy, so I presume you will be able to convince me that this tag serves some purpose, but the way I see things, given that this is 2007, it's obvious to anyone smart enough to tie their own shoes that we can only speculate as to the events of the 2010s. The tag is therefore, methinks, redundant and even insulting to the reader. I will watch this page for your thoughts. Unschool 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering what's been edited into 2010s and 2012 from time to time, some editors need to be reminded. Per WP:NPA, I decline to comment on the logical conclusion that some editors are not "smart enough to tie their own shoes". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how the use of a cliché, especially one which was directed at no one in particular, constitutes a personal attack. Besides, my point was specifically the opposite, that I do NOT believe that our editors are so lacking in intelligence, but rather, that they are intelligent and do not need a "future" tag on an article about a future decade to tell them that the information within might be "speculative". However, it appears that you have taken offense, which was not my intent, and so I apologize.
I am still left wondering, however, what it is that you are talking about. Your phrase, "Considering what's been edited into 2010s", is essentially what your edit summary said when reverting my removal of the tag. It is no more clear now than it was then. Could you please specifically give some examples of things that have been edited into the article that lead you to the conclusion that this tag serves a necessary purpose? Unschool 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

## Virtual Reality RAI TV 1988 Mandala System

Why you deleted my contribution?

--Raffaele Megabyte 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

## Virtual Reality Very Nervous System and David Rokeby

You were so pompous you considered Rokeby NON RELEVANT!

Have you seen that his works have also received an award in Biennale of Venice? Venice_Biennale

He was a pioneer in immersive spaces of virtual reality, without the use of helmets or screens.

His works started in far 1986. years before Wikipedia was even conceived. But you canceled him.

Do you belive you are so acculturated you known everything of Virtual Reality, and that Virtual reality article it is a creature of you own?

Please keep your feet on heart and continue learn about things you ignored the existence before, and perhaps with a bit of humble behaviour.

Sincerely,

--Raffaele Megabyte 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

## 3RR on 9/11 Truth Movement

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Arthur is claiming that the website shows no evidence of the degree, hence the wording that the good man "claims" it. That's generous on Arthur's part, methinks. The website is not going to say that he doesn't have a degree, is it? I never went to Michigan State, would I expect the Michigan State website to say that I didn't have a degree from there? Maybe I'm jumping in on something I don't understand, but Debeo, your logic baffles me. Unschool 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course i dont expect them to say he didnt have a degree. When i went to the site arthur pointed out i did not see a list of every single person who has ever graduated with a degree. The closest i came to was finding a list of people who received some sort of award. Now if there was such a list, and i missed it, then that would satisfy me. But i found no list, and therefore no evidence this man was lieing about his degree. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thanks for your excellent contributions in the tax articles.You contribute at Quatloos as well, don't you? (I'm relatively new over there.) Famspear 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's me on Quatloos. I'm not contributing much there, any more, but it's nice to be recognized. You might also want to keep an eye on the Wikipedia article Quatloos; tax protester WP:Vandalism has been known to occur. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, these are on my watchlist. Yours, Famspear 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

## Riemann Hypothesis

This edit is just wrong. ${\displaystyle \epsilon ={\frac {1}{2}}}$ is obviously an example.

I'm not sure if that's true. Could that be derived from PNT? Do you mind showing me?218.133.184.93 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

${\displaystyle \pi (x)=O(x)\,}$ by definition
${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{x}{\frac {\mathrm {d} t}{\ln(t)}}=O(x)}$ as ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{\ln(t)}}<1}$ for sufficiently large t.
Hence
${\displaystyle \left|\pi (x)-\int _{0}^{x}{\frac {\mathrm {d} t}{\ln(t)}}\right|=O(x)}$.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this true? Cpuld you prove this too?

${\displaystyle |{\mathcal {O}}(f(n))-{\mathcal {O}}(f(n))|={\mathcal {O}}(f(n))\,}$

218.133.184.93 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Big O notation#Sum. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That just says this. How would you prove from here?
${\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(f(n))+{\mathcal {O}}(f(n))={\mathcal {O}}(|f(n)|)\,}$218.133.184.93 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's my "job" to give you an education in elementary mathematics. (And "=" is not symmetric when dealing with big O notation.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That will only mean that your claim is not valid.218.133.184.93 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to block you for violations of WP:AGF. Your lack of understanding of elementary mathematics doesn't entitle you to make unsourced statements that the rest of us recognize as being false, or to delete statements that the rest of us recognize as being true and obvious. If you could find sources for your statements, then we might have to include a refutation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who are we? 218.133.184.93 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else who speaks English who has ever edited the articles in question? I don't think that's an exaggeration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you.218.133.184.93 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a counterexample. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do your friends always agree with you? Do they prove your statements for you? 218.133.184.93 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had trouble with this even with regular editors; there are some mathematical theorems and methods which are so well-known that it's difficult to find anyone who's actually written it down. This is one of them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
WAREL / DYLAN, Arthur is right, both in that ${\displaystyle \epsilon ={\tfrac {1}{2}}}$ is an obvious counterexample and that he doesn't need to teach you the basics of asymptotic mathematics (or anything else, for that matter). Furthermore, for a Wikipedia article to say that no specific value of ε is known, there needs at least to be a reliable source which says that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

## Brun's theorem

I agree with you that the fact sum of the reciprocals of the Mersenne primes converges is too obvious. However, it still is a theorem. On the other hand, Brun's theorem that sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes converges is a bit technical. But, that still is just another theorem. How do you distinguish this two?218.133.184.93 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid whether something is "interesting" or "notable" in mathematics depends on the knowledge of the one taking note. But only those who are familiar with the subject can make that decision. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

## Arthur (not you)

Hi Arthur. I'm a little confused by this edit. I added Joseph Charles Arthur to Arthur (disambiguation) because it seemed to make more sense than adding the link to Arthur, which was about the first name Arthur. All I'm trying to do is to make it possible for someone coming across the author abbreviation "Arthur" to be able to find the correct person. At present, there's no way for someone coming across the author abbreviation "Arthur" to figure who that might be (most botanists don't have a clue to whom author abbreviations refer). Even systematists often don't recognise authors outside of their specialty. Guettarda 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the proper place would have been Arthur (surname). But, thinking about it, if he was really known as Arthur, you may have chosen the correct placement. My bad. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

## 9/11 conspiracy Marvin Bush Wirt Walker etc

You are correct in that I said the claims were not cited. What was cited is that David Griffin has made the claim that Walker is Bush's cousin( and there are many cites of Griffin making this claim) and that a Kuwaiti ruling family member has claimed that Walker is a "distant relative". Of course these the claims come from biased and questionable sources. If you have not looked yet this is a matter of considerable discussion on the talk page for the article. The 9/11 conspiracy article describes conspiracy claims that are from biased sources of questionable or disputed credibility. The claims of a relationship between Walker and the Bush family in that respect is no different from many of the other conspiracy claims. I clearly inform the readers from who and the nature of the people making these claims. I also informed the readers that the Walker claims are "murky" above and beyond what I needed to do to make sure the readers understood the nature of these claims. I do not see a major difference in the subsection I wrote and the the Bush and Bin Ladin family subsection which has been allowed to stay in the article. The sections from describing the positions Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker held in the company and the company history were from the Washington Spectator a publication that has been around since 1974. I have no reason off hand to doubt the credibility of the publication and the publications credibility has not been challanged in the talk pages but if you have good reason as to why that publication or the writer of the cite is unreliable please state. Feel free to move this into the article talk page Edkollin 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

## Square root of 3 Talk page

Dear Arthur: The formerly active Talk:Square root of 3 as it previously existed, together with its edit history, disappeared. Today, IP 67.85.160.89 created a new Talk:Square root of 3 page with one word, "PROVE". Any idea how such a thing can happen or how it can be fixed? There was useful discussion about the article on the old Talk page. Thanks.Finell (Talk) 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I can't find any log entries for the talk page, deletion logs, etc. Do you remember the last time you saw the talk page? Perhaps I can go through the logs searching for a secondary entry? Perhaps you might try Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I now think that this was my mistake. I was confusing discussion on Talk:Square root of 5 (which is still there, intact) with Talk:Square root of 3; now, I am no longer sure that I ever saw the latter. Perhaps Talk:Square root of 3 really was just created, albeit with only one word (which made me think it was vandalism). I apologize for wasting your time. Finell (Talk) 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

## Indentation convention

Arthur, please see for instance, in Talk:function (mathematics), the section Talk:function (mathematics)#notation for functions.. Bo Jacoby started the section and kept 0th level of indentation. The same is true for thousands of other sections. If this also has the advantage of increasing readability by markedly shortening the (vertical) lenght of a very long (but also very important) contribution, I really can't see the reason to adopt a different convention.

Also, notice that the discussion Talk:function (mathematics)#Relations, functions, and partial functions is actually a continuation and expansion of the previous section, which I started ("Inconsistent or ambiguous definitions of the word function"). It even uses the same figure as a starting point. It even contains a reference to the previous section (see my second posting). Actually, its section header was added by me! Initially, it was under the header of the previous section. Moreover, Wvbailey wrote that he posted his first comment after readindg the section I started on talk:partial function!

Therefore, please allow me to decide the format and keep it consistent in these three cross-linked sections. I believe I deserved this little privilege. And I am not asking the privilege to vandalize: the convention I chose is as sensible as any other, but in this particular case it also has the above-mentioned advantage with respect to the others.

Thanks for your contribution, anyway. With kind regards, Paolo.dL 10:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to keep it consistent, do so. But when you make such long comments, it's important to make sure that other's comments are separated from yours by some indication. The standard convention is to use indentation level, but Bill inserted his comment at the same level as yours. If he had written a long comment at the same level, the talk section would be hopeless. Perhaps the non-standard and annoying ---- between comments in the section would be an alternative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everybody can easily see the separation between comments because each comment has a different indentation with respect to the adjacent ones. I repeat that this is a (perhaps not written yet, but widely used) standard. You can see examples everywhere in Wikipedia.

Notice that you keep giving indentation 1 to the comment "Bill here:", but this was posted by Wvbailey! And I thought that we agreed that Wvbailey has 0th level in this section. Since I am keeping level 2, and I am not Wvbailey, I cannot see the rationale in your edit summary:

• "fmt (if you going to use a non-standard indenting convention, you should monitor to ensure that other's comments aren't confused for yours)"

The only one who "stole" an indentation level is KMsqr (he stole level 1, which was previously used by Carl), but as long as the separation between his comment and the adjacent ones is clear, I am not going to discuss KMsqr's decision, which is perfectly acceptable and (in my opinion) even better than using indentation level 4! His comment is so good and general that he deserves level 1!

When the discussion will be closed, if it will become very long, we might be alble to use subheaders to enhance readability, if needed. Please trust me. I refactored several talk pages, I do care very much about readability and I know what I am doing. See, for instance,

Regards, Paolo.dL 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

## Re

It's got references, doesn't it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

## Sixteenth Amendment

With regard to the change you undid on the 16th Amendment article, why do you deem the Tax History Museum at http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm to be "not a reliable source"? The quotes on the page can be verified even if you do something as simple as googling for them -- they show up in the Google Books version of Theodore Roosevelt's Presidential Addresses and State Papers. Linking Google Books is impractical as there are page limits on how much one can view of a book at one time. 66.108.169.227 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. There have been too many tax protester arguments added from unreliable sources lately. I've reverted myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

## Real number#space

I wanted to link R24 from Leech lattice and other places Rn appears, because there's no introductory material about it. It is the kind of baffling technical notation which often is overlooked by expert editors who don't think twice about it. What's a better way to do that? ←BenB4 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree #R is much better; will change it and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. ←BenB4 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

## "And the "clarifications" [of WP:NUMBER], if kept intact, are longer than WP:NOTE."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.[25] By my count WP:NUMBER is 8,767 bytes and WP:NOTE is 11,003 bytes. Whatever fraction of 8,767 bytes the WP:NUMBER clarifications are, they cannot possibly be more than WP:NOTE's 11,003 bytes. So, could you clarify what you meant by this? I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion that the clarifications of WP:NUMBER are longer than WP:NOTE. --Dragonfiend 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

## Deletion of paragraph on Osama bin Laden on 9/11 page

Dear Arthur

You have deleted the following sentence.

It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-\$ 3 billion when setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight the Soviet occupation of the country. [1] [2]

I agree that this paragraph and its references might be improved. However, I do not think it is irrelevant: A balanced account of Osama bin Laden in the context of 9/11 should include a short description on how he acquired money, power and know-how to accomplish the attacks since this may contribute to the question about the origin or terrorism. I have put the above sentence on the discussion page.

--Benjamin.friedrich 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page. I'm willing to discuss it, but we need real sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

## Golden Ration edits?

Dear Arthur,

I see that I added a phrase to an image that should have been added to the text next to it (which now is a fragment, though not necessarily worse than the wordy sentence it was before). I apologize for placing that phrase in the wrong position, which I'm sure I did because of unfamiliarity with the code.

Second, you took out the dates for Zeising as well as the brackets--but please note that I did not put those brackets there that form a link (albeit an empty one), only the years. I added his dates because he simply popped in out of nowhere, and those years form a sort of an introduction, even if still not a very good one. But I did not (as far as I know) make or break some Wiki-link, as is suggested on your page, and I don't see where I changed meaning unless it was by fixing grammar.

But I'll lay off. Thanks for your comment re: the picture, and perhaps you care to fix the actual paragraph next to it; I'll stay away from it and other articles. Good luck with your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talkcontribs) 18:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

## Perfect number

Will you allow me to change

• The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 739 (Cohen 1987).

to

• The smallest prime factor of N is greater than 2500000 (Yamada 2007).

from

[26]?

Thanks.218.133.184.93 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Others have reported that that paper doesn't support that result, and some question whether it's considered reliable. So, at this point, no. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've confirmed that Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2, and it's still not published. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yamada 2007 only reports that conclusion if all the ei are 1 or 2. So is Cohen 1987.218.133.184.93 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

## Even and odd numbers

Why is Nielsen's result not appropriate?218.133.184.93 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

## iff

Sorry, I think its confusing the other way and thought the comparison of the truth tables would make it easier to understand. --Kenneth M Burke 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

## Million

I'm terribly disappointed in the recent edits to this page and User talk:152.91.9.144. To suggest that {{uw-3rr}} is appropriate is either an attempt to intimidate or displays a grotesque misunderstanding of the three revert rule. There was, in anything other than the most midless and bloody-minded reading, not even a single "revert."

• A bot mistakenly reverts twice: Are you suggesting than anon << bot?
• PrimeFan reverts with an edit summary that indicates he's mistaken the edit for vandalism.

Please do review both these edits, and the arguments in talk. Projects do not own pages.
124.190.20.47 07:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To take your points in order:
You have reverted at least twice. Even reverting a bot counts as a revert.
The bot did not revert "mistakenly", it was quite correct.
PrimeFan's description may not be the best, but "per talk" shows a clear misunderstanding of the contents of the talk page. Repeating the error, after it's pointed out, is pretty close to vandalism.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please specify what bothers you about my edits in Colloidal gold. Your reverts are extremely destructive to Wiki. Stop it. V8rik 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I cannot confirm that your sources support your changes, I think I might revert anyway. However, I decided to just correct your edit and add a {{dubious}} tag. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

## Pi (copied from user page)

Forgive me for placing this here, Arthur, but I couldn't figure out where else to put it.

There is a glaring error in the article on pi, the transcendental mathematical constant. Naturally, this article happens to be protected, heaven forfend that the great gods of Wikipedia could conceivably commit an error!

The article claims that pi is not constructible because it is transcendental. This may be sufficient, but it is not necessary. After all, the square root of two is transcendental, but I can readily construct it by drawing two perpendicular line segments of length one and merely forming the diagonal that completes the isosceles triangle.

Please correct the "pi" article or see that it is corrected, skeptic Jewish mathematician user (from another skeptic Jewish mathematician user).

Thank you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talkcontribs) 19:27, September 23, 2007

I don't see anything wrong with "An important consequence of the transcendence of π is the fact that it is not constructible." And the square root of 2 is not transcendental. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

## More on pi

No, indeed it isn't transcendental. I got ahead of myself. It is irrational but not nonconstructible. Come to think of it, the pi article didn't say that irrational numbers are nonconstructible, so nix it. Thank you. -- BDWilner 9/23/07 16:09EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.68.72 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

## Meta-systems

I don't understand your last refert on Meta-systems. Deleting a reference as linkspam doesn't make any sence. Please take a look Talk:Meta-systems. - Mdd 09:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Adam's "stuff" seems to be frequently inserted on plausibly-related articles, and I couldn't see it was being used as a reference rather than as linkspam. I've reverted my removal. That being said, I agree the article needs an {{expert}} opinion, as the body seems to be unsourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this feed back. I know in the meantime how it feels to have to remove someone's linkspam over and over again. I realize now things are more complcated as they seemed. - Mdd 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit of Adam to Systemics makes me guess your were right from the beginning. I now referted his latests edit as selfpromotion. I would appreciate it if you could take a look here if you think I did the right thing. Thanks. - Mdd 11:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have started some rewritting of the article and create some space for further development. I guess I should do the same with the Meta-systems artcile. I am still wondering however if I was right to remove Adam's edit as selfpromotion. In the edit summary I called it "Removed self promotion by sock puppet from User:Adam M. Gadomski". I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the sock pupppet, because it was an anomynous ID nummer. - Mdd 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

## Morgellons

I still have Morgellons on my watch list, and I notice that some of your sensible-looking changes have been reverted. Is it time for more formal procedures, like an article RfC? The Talk page is a bit funny, in that it's hard to see if a consensus has been sought on the term 'medical.' Semi-protection is something to be considered. Since you've been following the recent history more closely, perhaps you can advise what should be done. EdJohnston 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

## ok thanks

Dear Arthur, I don't want to be in a war. But were you not in it too? (You won by the way). I do feel that as someone who has listened to a lot of what A.J. has to say, that to begin an article about him by defining him as a promoter of conspiracy theories is not a fair and just representation. I think he is someone who feels he has been lied to-has done actual research of published sources that has confirmed his suspicion, demonstrably. I may be wrong, but that does not make him a promoter of conspiracy theories. If I tell you you have a red face- then you look in the mirror and see it is not red- then you declare that your face is not red- this does not make you a conspiracy theorist- or promoter of conspiracy theories. Does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoon (talkcontribs) 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree that he's presented evidence of the "truth" of his theories, as opposed to your claim that he's presented proof. But we've both lost, because the lie that he predicted 9/11 is now back in the article, and I can't revert it, because I used 2 reverts on your mistakes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There's been a bunch of nonsense added to that article in the past 24 hours and I've exhausted my reverts as well (otherwise I would clean the article up). The current version of the article is unacceptable. Why is it that I find myself approaching 3RR on that article more than any other? Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

## re: "Logical connective" vandalism

Thank you for your inquiry on my user talk page, "Please explain why your link satisfies WP:RS or WP:EL?" For an explanation, see the new web page "Venn Diagrams and Finite Geometry" about the article on Logical connective. Cullinane 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for a separate inquiry today on my user talk page, "Please explain (through Wikipedia E-mail, or on my talk page) if you think there's a problem with DMOZ, or file an abuse report. I'll investigate to the best of my ability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"

Yes there is a problem wth DMOZ. For details, follow the links in the web page "Ashay Dharwadker and Usenet Postings".

For further evidence, see the DMOZ page on graph theory that is edited by Ashay Dharwadker.

Of the 30 links there, 6 are to Dharwadker's own pages at

The home page of the Geocities site is devoted to Dharwadker's alleged proof of the four-color theorem.

For an appraisal of the alleged proof, see the archived Wikipedia discussion.

Anyone who questions the alleged proof is liable to be attacked under a variety of aliases. For an example other than myself, see the attacks by 122.163.***.*** and by "Rstewart" on Wikipedia administrator Jitse Niesen in May and June of this year.

If such attacks and vandalism are temporarily stopped by blocking the New Delhi IPs beginning with 122.163, they will likely resume from a new Internet service provider or proxy. Nevertheless, such a block seems worthwhile. Cullinane 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the following comment by Greg Bard objecting to my implication that an illustration he used had not been arrived at independently, and to my use of an offensive term. The comment has been edited to remove the term, which I have retracted. Cullinane 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The arrangement of those diagrams are NOT from your website. That arrangement follows a logical pattern that A) has been published in numerous other places, long before your website, and B) follows a logical pattern such that it does not impart any new information that every rational being already knows directly. The pattern is no coincidence because it follows a logical pattern, not because it was copied from your site. Furthermore, the convention of shaded areas as "false" and white areas as "true" is the prevailing convention in literature on the topic.
I do not know anything about a user from New Dehli abusing an account. That is a separate matter, and should be dealt with appropriately. If this user's actions instigated this accusation on myself, please re-evaluate your motivations. It seems that you added your page as a reference to that section, which is a welcome contribution, and it was removed by someone, which I agree is dumb. Please do not take your bad experience out on me. Also, the name Johnston diagram is the one used by an existing Wikipedia image which was the basis for the rest.
The only reason your page containing this arrangement is mentioned, is so as to explain a tesseract representation of the operators. This representation, interestingly, was removed from Wikipedia because it was believed by one person to perhaps be an arbitrary arrangement. The presence of the arrangement of diagrams on your page is unremarkable, non-original, and non-creative. Your belief that your page is the source of this arrangement is false, and the edit history of the page in question is consistent with that fact.
Be well, Greg Bard 23:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you profusely for your kind conciliation on my talk page. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you again here. Be well Greg Bard 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

## Oddity

Wondering about this edit. In your edit summary, you seem to predict the SearchChiro addition a full two minutes before it is even added. Am I missing something? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a complex history...
1. 06:17: Chirosearch added it here
2. 06:18: Shot info removed the link only here
3. 06:20: I completed reversion of the reordering here, without noticing the previous partial reversion
5. 06:29: I re-reverted at here
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

## re: base composition edits

hi arthur.

indeed, i had checked into the right space for awhile of where this information would go.

modular arithmetic has something to do with the results of the combinations, but the information is really about what exactly is inside any given base B.

hence, from what i can figure out, the closest fit is inside the definition of a base itself, since the components are from that base.

that modular arithmetic comes into play is no surprise, as what the layout is talking about is the means of which to comprehend the symmetric, infinitely long 'strings' that make up any given base B.

that said, i think modular arithmetic is a means to examine, not what is actually being presented.

what i'm describing is more akin to a knot. there are a number (B - 1) of threads that, when woven together, create base B.

my argument for this information being in the base category is that these threads are unique in composition and position for each base B, thus are describing an inherit property of base B, and B could be any number, so it has to do exactly with.. well.. bases.

so, unless you can give me the go ahead to create a new page and link to it from the 'base' page directly, as it is directly following that and is indeed describing the internal composition of the bases, i'm pretty sure that the base page is where this information is to be entered.

thanks, chris.

UmbraPanda 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's relevent (if at all) to calculations modulo B, rather than in base B. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're properly comprehending the properties i'm disclosing.. it's not surprising, i've not seen the research anywhere else, and it's nearly too simple to see.

I'll try clarifying.

The only modulation used is the base itself. This is the first principle that you'll need to come to terms with.. it's unary in nature. Unary as a concept usually relates to a sequence of 111111 or whatever. in this case, it's BBBBBBBBB.

Following from this first principle of unary operation, the only operation space is the total span of the base itself. Thus, it looks like modular arithmatic, but it's really not. There's no concept of zero in there, nor any other quantized 'number' except for B. It's an expansion with B as unary operations.

So it's unary, operating on itself, revealing the patterns that make that specific unary cohesive as a.. domain perhaps. there's not really a word for it in english.

To push it into modular domain would be missing the point completely, narrowly. This is not a base operating on another base, this is a base as a unary element operating fully on itself.

The reason for the other 'numbers' is the quantization of what can be perceieved as spacial relationships of, like I said, something akin to strings. These, when written out, seem to be other 'numbers', but when there is just the unary to consider, it is what you're missing in the consideration itself. These are the symmetric spacial elements that construct the inner workings of base B, allowing all other quantizations in the next stages of mathematics.

I hope that this makes it clearer what exactly is going on.. you have to look at what is being represented. My position before is the same as it is now, that this procedure shows an inherit property of base B, is fully cyclic, fully symmetric, and totally composes B as an operator. There is no recognition of this procedure within the mathematics community that i've seen to date, no categorical entry more suited to this information than in the base category itself, else directly linked from that category into a new category, akin to anatomy from the body

Chris. UmbraPanda 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It still looks to me as if it involves sequences modulo B. In general, anything involving the least significant digit of integers in base B belongs under modular arithmetic, rather than base B. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

on afterthought, and paying more attention to the 'radix' marker on this category, i think the termonology i'm using could use some refinement. i am referring to the terminating quantization diagram of a base on a given field, so i'll put some more thought into a section of modular field theory or some such.

Chris.

UmbraPanda 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think your material cannot be included in any Mathematics article unless it is published somewhere. If it's not the least significant digit of a linear progression (skipping 0s), I don't know what it is, and we would need a reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

right, i came to the same conclusion regarding the referencing. it's a fascinating aspect of quantization if you get it.. the internal symmetries of how a base quantizes the underlaying field geometry. i'll try something like arvix.org

chris

UmbraPanda 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

arvix.org (or however it's spelled) is not a WP:RS as far as we (Wikipedia) are concerned. I think we'll need a published source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

arxiv.org is maintained by the 'Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation', which made me think it was a credible source.

so by published you mean perhaps a peer-reviewed journal? which of these is acceptable to Wikipedia?

chris

UmbraPanda 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

archiv.org is maintained by Cornell University, but not reviewed in any sense. It could be used, at most, to confirm that "the author claims....", without regard to truth. In the case of mathematics, a peer-reviewed journal is generally considered to be required, except for some cases involving recreational mathematics where such should not be expected. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

## It is VANDALISM 3RR rule does not apply to VANDALISM. Read the policy.

Hello There,

I understand that you may be trying to do good here, but I have already been through this. IPs come in and editing the John Morgan page, as well as others, with known NON SENSE. I remove it. Removing non sense is NOT VALDALISM. I have engaged them on many occasions, note the DISCUSSION OF THE PAGE, and noone ether replies, or they change it anyway, or they say that it is true without sourced information or they revert the edit and add even crazier things. Please follw up before you warn THE WRONG PERSON of the 3RR rule. IF you want to be productive, ban the IPs that are doing the known and documented vandalism, protect the site from editing by IPs but don't warn the guy trying to keep the article honest about the 3RR rule when he has already gone through the process before and was vindicated

-Kirkoconnell 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I know 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but adding of unsourced (but not disproven) favorable information about a person in his article is not vandalism. (I was going to suggest semiprotection this morning. Perhaps I'll do that now.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-03 Tom Cryer

I have decided to take the mediation case. I would like you to take part in the discussion--Phoenix 15 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

## Congratulations! You have been awarded a Barnstar

 The Invisible Barnstar In addition to being a good mathematician, you are a very good user. NHRHS2010 Talk 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Аhow can I delete an article that I had made in wiki. thanks october/5/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.161.2 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't actually delete it yourself. You may request deletion by placing the {{db-author}} tag at the top of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information, or to see whether I've misinterpreted your request. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

## 911 consiracy theories

How can you revert for OR when it is a factual event and the reference given is a scientific journal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talkcontribs) 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Placing the fact that airliners can be flown remotely with the theory that it was done in 9/11 qualifies as WP:SYN. Only if some of the truthers made the connections would it be allowable in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. I can tell you that some claim that all Boeing aircraft computor systems currently have the capability to hand remote control to a third party. There is evidence DARPA designed a system to take over a planes computor but no evidence it was ever used. I'd rather not add that but the section does need to be balanced. Wayne 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, I just came upon this article that has a clean up needed on it. I would like to help with this article's balance and also help with the very long footnotes but would love any suggestions you have since I suspect this is a very controversial article. I haven't read through the whole article yet but I have most of it. I also looked at the footnotes and so far found one (#41 Who Killed John O'Neil) advert and two blogs, #14 & 244. Can you suggest a way for me to enter this article without causing myself problems with other editors who have been or are now very active on this article? I would appreciate any suggestions you have. Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 11:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

## Category

Category: calques from German was deleted, due to its "essentially the same as Catergory:german loanwords." Sorry! 172.192.43.160 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted, not merged. category:German loanwords does not include calques. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes User talk:172.191.100.66 is samel. 172.192.43.160 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 12#Category:Calques from GermanArthur Rubin | (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

THEY DO "CONTAIN STRING 'LOG'"...LEARN GREEK FOR ONCE 172.192.43.160 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was reading AN/I and noticed your post. You appear to be dealing with the same editor whose edits I have had to revert recently due to a large number of factual inaccuracies and lack of sourcing. The most recent of these is the contributions of 172.190.67.32, where German (and even some Hebrew) surnames were marked as German loanwords inappropriately. I also had to revert a large amount of plausible, but incorrect information at List of most common surnames by the same author.
The history of that article seems to show this is the IP address of User:R9tgokunks (see 29 September). Further evidence for this comes from looking at the history of the article Calque - cf ([27], [28], [29] and then your latest experience [30]); also cf Prekmurje ([31] and [32] - anyone for grammer?), Spitz ([33], [34]) or [35] with [36].
Overall, I suspect at least [37] (numerous warnings on talkpage), [38] (that you encountered first), [39], (one block from you) and [40] (much edit-warring in history and almost identical edits here, here and [41]) are User:R9tgokunks.
Personally, I'm worried about the amount of just plain wrong information this editor is including - even if it's written in the best of faith, it leads people astray. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for a sample of mistakes I've corrected. Looking at [42], he knows a little German, but certainly not enough to avoid simple errors when editing German language related articles. A little knowledge can indeed be a dangerous thing - see [43].
It might be worth having a chat with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who blocked them previously for edit-warring and knows more about them. Might be worth a checkuser too. Knepflerle 12:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

## Unfair accusation

Your accusation on Talk:function (mathematics) was absolutely not acceptable and not substantiated.

Please either substantiate it as soon as you can, if you can, or remove it. If you want to delete it or rewrite it, you can also delete my answer.

Thanks, Paolo.dL 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say YOU were incompetent (although I admit implying it), I said YOUR contributions did not show knowledge of the subject. I stand by that statement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You exactly wrote "your early edits in this article clearly show you do not understand the concept of function". When you write a personal attack, it must be based on facts. I scratched my head in vain and could not understand what are the edits you refer to. Reading my edits, I see myself as an editor which greatly improved the article. I repeat that even KSmrq did not touch my version of the definition of function, which is still the current version!

My hypotheses is that your comment is based on a misunderstanding:

• You possibly confused my comments on the talk page with my edits in the article. There is a huge difference!
• May be you attributed to me some text written by somebody else that I just moved from a part of the article to another. For instance, you deleted a sentence while I was editing the article, saying it was redundant. That text was not mine.
• You might confuse me with another editor. For instance, as you can see on Talk:Function (mathematics) since I wrote a previous version of the section about inverse functions, Wvbailey was convinced that I was the author of the version written by KSmrq!

Please check! You should also explain why you did not revert my edits if they were wrong. Really, you should triple check before publicly offending someone. I remind you that behind these letters there is a human being.

Paolo.dL 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did confuse your confusing edits with someone else's confusing-to-the-point of being meaningless edits. Please check the talk page for my updated response. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

## September 11 and Year subheaders

I see you reverted my addition of subheaders to September 11 because I acted before discussing the issue on the project talk page. Fair enough; nevertheless I already have started a section on the project talk page to discuss this precise issue, and I would very much appreciate comments from you and other people involved in the Days of the Year Project about the merits of these subheaders on such pages. Thanks, --M@rēino 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

## Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 13:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

## External links section in Gaming mathematics

Please don't delete external links that you aren't even able to review. I can only imagine that you're assuming bad faith on my part or ignorance on my part, neither of which is the case. If you're able to actually view the external link I've added, then we can and should discuss it on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Rray 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The first one you added was not relevent, and the discover article was not relevent. Why should I assume the other article was relevent? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We can carry on one discussion at the talk page for the article if you'd prefer, but just because you think 2 links were not relevant (an opinion I disagree with), that does not mean the 3rd link is irrelevant. That being said, I can understand why you might make that assumption.
If you can find a way to access the page in question, we can discuss whether or not it's appropriate, but if you're unable to view the site, shouldn't you reply on other users' judgment and discretion? You and I aren't the only 2 people interested in that article, so if that link is inappropriate, I'm sure someone else can voice that opinion after actually looking at the page in question. Rray 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

## Hovind's "theory"

Hey ho. It would be nice if there were another opinion or two in the discussion of the term "Theory" at Talk:Kent_Hovind#"The_Hovind_Theory". I know this debate is fairly trivial, but there are a couple of editors that seem adamant on the issue. Frankly, removing the word "theory" seems churlish, spiteful and prejudicial to me, but perhaps it is more reasonable to you. Anyway, a fresh voice would be good.

Thanks. Phiwum 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

## Gorbachev 2011

Hi. You've deleted my edit twice now. You claimed that the source isn't reliable, and it lacks notoriety. I don't really care enough to debate you on whether or not he said what he did, but he did. There are other sources I chose only the first from Google. Secondly, if an ex-Communist President of Russia makes a statement claiming he will personally lead a revolution in a major American city I think that is notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I trust you will replace the edit. I don't care enough to anymore. Jstanierm 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Seems like you add the term "run by ex-editors" for the dmoz resources link on dmoz page. Just so you know it has both ex editors, and current dmoz editors involved, and no where has it been mentioned on the external link that its run by "Dmoz editors" ever, it has always been run by webmaster, and it is involved in provide status check and reviews for various webmasters. So, please note the difference down somewhere, its not run by so called ex-editors, so stop misleading or breaking the link title all the time.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbunny (talkcontribs) 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

## What chiropractors do

Hi Arthur. At the discussion on safety at the chiropractic article, you wrote this edit summary, "The two studies referenced for specific injury rates also fail to distinguish between chiropractic adjustments and spinal manipulation." I'm not exactly sure what deeper meaning is in those words.

## System Accidents

Arthur, please give me some space on the system accident article. I tend to view the discussion page as a chance to kick around ideas. I know a lot of people don't, but, but . . .

The Space Shuttle Columbia may be more of a borderline case rather full-fledged system accident.

There is disagreement, which should be acknowledged, on how dangerous Hadley Rille (Apollo 15) really was. You still have the case, my main point, of an astronaut hurrying down an unknown slope in order to stay to a rigid "safe" timeline.

Businesses carding everyone, including people who are obviously way, way past 21 is the best example of clunkliness and playing it "safe" that I can think of. And since the whole concept of system accident can be awfully slippery, I think it does help to include everyday examples.

--->most of all, our main article needs more than just three skimpy examples. Again, I think Avianca 052 and Apollo 10 would be good additions. Cool Nerd 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "businesses carding everyone" could relate to a "system accident". An "accident", perhaps, but not a "system accident". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

## Prod on Nick Munro

Hi Arthur! I noticed your edit summary here and since I figure you're addressing me because I replaced the {{prod}} tag, I'd take a moment to explain why I did so. The author of the page removed the tag, without either addressing the issues that were the problem, or objecting to the deletion on the article's talk page. Per the prod: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason." Since neither thing was done (nor has it been done yet), I replaced the Prod. The entire article's claims are unfounded and unverifiable, as I did some digging and searching trying to verify them, but came up completely empty. As the person who placed the prod tag said originally, a 14 year old professional player is highly unlikely. I think that your addition of the fact tags and other tags is quite helpful, but I wanted to let you know why I originally replaced the prod. Hope that explains my reasoning! :o) ArielGold 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

## Archimedes Plutonium

What's this guy done to you? He's an interesting eccentric with interesting ideas. He's more well known than "lonelygirl15", who has a page, and he's certainly has a lot more to contribute in terms of original thinking. Besides, where's the consensus for removal?Likebox 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

He has personally attacked me (or my handle) on sci.math, but:
1. He does not have interesting ideas. (Those which make sense turn out to be wrong.)
2. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (lonelygirl15) is not a reason to keep.
3. He has something to contribute in terms of original thinking? (See point 1.)
4. Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination) (where I !voted "keep", although I accepted the merge on the talk page).
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, since the verdict of the most recent AfD was Delete, wouldn't it be fair to delete the article history under the redirect, and put the redirect back, so that this kind of shenanigans can't take place in the future? If necessary the surviving redirect could be protected. I assume you may consider yourself involved, so some other admin could do it. I was going to propose it at WP:AN but want to see what you think. EdJohnston 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your points, but this is not a shenanigan on my part, I am sincere. This guy, while almost always totally wrong, has been a bit of a role model for me personally in the way that he steadfastly maintains his positions, and adapts when he learns something new. Regarding the previous vote: the previous vote was plagued with the "unreliable reference" problem, which I fixed by citing the "Discover" article about him. It was also influenced by the fact the Plutonium objected to the article, because it was disrespectful, I fixed that too. The third problem of unreferenced autobiographical information can easily be fixed by adhering to the "biographies of living persons" guidelines.Likebox 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Plutonium objected to the article, because (in part) it was accurate. "Disrespectful" was a red herring. And, although I don't fully agree with it, it's policy that USENET is not a usable source even under WP:V#SELF WP:SELFPUB (particularly the last two points), because of the possibility of forgery. If AP has a web site, we could use that under WP:V#SELF WP:SELFPUB, but notability would be hard to justify based only on his web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if it is accurate that James Joyce snorted coke and had an affair with my wife, it is not reasonable to say that about him in a public forum. A wikipedia page is not the place to fight personal fights. The accurate statements about a living person should be respectful. AP has a website too, btw, and I cited the website as much as possible.Likebox 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that there is a voting paradox involved when considering the three options "delete" "keep" "merge". Although if you hold a vote between the two options "delete" against "keep or merge" you get one answer, if you consider the two options "delete or merge" against "keep" you get a different answer. Since the options under considerations were "delete or merge" vs "keep", the people who supported "merge" were automatically put in the "delete" category, and this is not fair. These types of things should be avoided in the future. I understand that he is not the nicest of people, I argued with him too way back when. But that was ten years ago, and I have come to realize that even he had something important to contribute. As far as original ideas go, his idea on group selection through warfare seems interesting, as does his nonstandard Adic integers.Likebox 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

## Your message at User talk:68.146.41.232

This is in response to the message you left at the above IP talk page. I was unaware that I had been logged out, so I was the one who made the edits that you claimed were vandalism. First, please sign your comments when leaving messages on talk pages. Second, WP:Assume good faith. Not all edits by IPs are vandalism. Thirdly, please specify where in the article 2060s or indeed anywhere in the similar articles I edited (while unintentionally logged out) is a ban on anniversary listings indicated. If no such indication is given, might I suggest a note be added to all these articles so that newcomers and experienced editors (logged in or logged out) may be aware of this? Your posting on the IP talk page, to be honest, had the feel of WP:BITE to it as well. Cheers. 23skidoo 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the actual decision was made in a deleted WikiProject, but I'm not the only one who remembers seeing it, and it seems like a good idea. See the history of the 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking in 2011 (which made it as a hidden comment), the quadracentennials (which should be tercentennials, according to my online dictionary) in 22nd Century, millennials in 3rd millennium, and other anniversaries. Thanks for poking me into finding where it should be, in Wikipedia:Timeline standards. I'll put in a request there for consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

## Escarbot

Hello,

I am presently correcting the pages wrongly modified by Escarbot.

It will be easier if you unblock it.

I did not use the -noredirect flag, as some languages (hr:, ksh:, ru:) have renamed their year pages. In that case it is better to follow the redirects. I agree that it has caused some damage in future years.

Best regards,

Vargenau 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll unblock. I'd appreciate it if you monitored the bot's progress, though. I'm not familiar with that particular bot template, though; is there a way to hold a series of edits and see if the bot requests multiple edits to the same interwiki tag, and flag those for human review? That might solve the problem I'm seeing, although it might not help the problem which triggered last year's block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking. I think I have corrected all damage on en:; I will monitor the bot operation. I do not know if monitoring can be automated as you suggest.

Vargenau 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

## Request for Mediation

 A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kent Hovind. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.

Sir, You have revised my link under "undo non-notable external link, probably created by the editor;Undid revision 165498127" You are right about the removal as it is non-notable, however I would like to request you to tell me the proper place (in Prime Number Page) where I can put this relationship between two primes (P1^P2+P2^P1) = P1+ P2 (MOD P1*P2) so that there will not be any need for that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpandya (talkcontribs) 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we've stretched the point on some articles, but, in general, we cannot include even very interesting mathematical statements unless a WP:RS said it. I'm afraid you, personally, are not a WP:RS in this context, so, regardless of the mathematical merits, we cannot include it in the article unless it's published. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

## AP again

Hello Arthur. Per [44], I gather that you and I are considered part of an 'active smear campaign' on Wikipedia. That comment is currently in the main article on AP, which references the Talk page as evidence that there was such a campaign. I may not be the best one to pursue this. EdJohnston 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

## Ripper edits

Thanks for your contributions there, as I think the mass reverts were going to get out of hand kinda quickly. I posted int he Discussion page that we shouldn't hold DreamGuy's past behaviors against him (unless they re-occur, as per the latest RfC caveat allowing for immediate blocking for uncivility). I am going to opt to have everyone reconstruct the article from the 'bricks' supplied by the 'structures' of both versions, and have posted a request for both calmness and the establishment of some touchstones of incontrovertible fact in the Discussion page. I would invite you to participate in the reconstruction of this article, as your edit history appear to be pretty solid. Either way, thanks for helping to calm things down. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

## Archimedes Plutonium

I respectfully ask that you stop putting annyoing unsupportable tags on the Archimedes Plutonium page. When discussing a murder charge where the person involved is not at all involved (and everybody knows it) the right thing to say is "specious". I also ask that you stop editing the page for a while. What makes you say that AP was born in 1950, the references I found have him born in 1968. But I could be wrong.Likebox 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Specious" seems incorrect, if the book is correct. The connection between AP and the murder victim was tenuous, but they both appeared crazy. Certainly "incorrect", and perhaps "without adequate foundation", but "specious" seems to me to imply that the police should have known better. wikt:specious seems to imply that any false accusation is "specious", so I may let it go, but "specious" seems a questionable word choice.
And I don't think I've played with the dates. That was this anon edit. You should be able to undo that.
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please listen, if you don't say "specious" about such a thing then it becomes a question in the reader's mind whether he was involved. That's no good. I don't want to get into detail about the investigation, because it really has nothing to do with him. He got draggen in because he acts weird, and in my opinion acting weird is not justification for police harassment, so specious is IMHO the perfect description. I am not editing the article, because emotions run high on this subject. I am asking you to give it some time.Likebox 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please Dr. Rubin--- it is inappropriate to say that someone is questioned for murder without saying that there was no basis for suspicion, when all the sources agree that there was no real basis for the questioning, other than his eccentric posts. Please do not make libelous erasures on a page about a living individual. It is not just in bad taste, it damages people's lives.Likebox 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No source presently referenced said there was no real basis for the questioning; hence it's probably a BLP violation against the police chief. However, please leave the (new) [original research?] tag in place, unless you can provide a specific source for that statement as written. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, this is not a joke, you are making OR claims that there was suspicion. Please do not do this. It is a terrible, immoral thing to do. Shame on you.Likebox 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying there was suspicion. I'm saying there is little evidence that there was not suspicion, and it's WP:OR to say otherwise. I shouldn't have added the {{dubious}} tag, but the {{or}} tag should remain until a source is found for that statement.
This is reprehensible behavior!! How would you like to have a shadow of that magnitude cast upon your character? Have you no shame?Likebox 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I am requesting that you remove your libelous and actionable comments from the talk page at Archimedes Plutonium immediately.Likebox 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, Arthur Rubin, you know very well that it does not imply that the police chief was doing anything wrong. He just has an obligation to pursue all leads, no matter how specious. You are continuing to write irresponsibly.Likebox 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is an unsourced statement which has a logical consequence a negative statement about a living person. It must go. My modification is as much as is stated in the source material, although it should logically disappear entirely. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We (Wikipedia) don't deal in facts, although I, at least, make an effort to make sure that things I know to be false don't appear in articles I monitor. We deal in what others have written. Unfortunately, no one has said that that knew AP was uninvolved in the murder, and we only have the police chief's statement that he didn't think AP was involved. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand now what you were trying to do, Artie-poo, but I wish you would have told me in a discrete email before this whole thing blew up. I apologize for thinking you are a monster. I apologized on the AN/I page also. Feel no need to respond.Likebox 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. With regards to this edit, could you please not use the rollback tool on edits that are not vandalism? I think Help:Reverting#Rollback sums it up better than I could, and I hope you don't mind me quoting it here.  :-)

"Reverting a good-faith edit may ... send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted."

Anyways, please try to take more care when using your admin buttons.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need more clarification as to whether a blind revert by an editor who has previously committed blind reverts and shows no sign of ever listening to arguments might be consindered "vandalism". The first time I reverted him, I used "undo". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Look no further than Wikipedia:Vandalism!  :) If I may quote again (only because the policy says it better than I ;-), "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." I don't know DreamGuy's history very well, but looking specifically at his edits on Jack the Ripper, it certainly seems to me that he was editing in good-faith.  :-) He added quite a few references, did some wiki-gnoming/formatting ... its not like he was deliberately inserting factual errors or replacing entire paragraphs with vulgarity.  ;-) So I would say, at least with regards to editing that article, that it certainly seems as if he is editing in good faith.  :) --Iamunknown 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to update Help:Reverting to make it clear that reversions of edits which are clearly outside the charter of that article can be done without further comment, rather than just clear Wikipedia:Vandalism. For instance, on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the Year articles, reverting redlinked births and deaths should be allowed under rollback. But I suppose I need to be more careful to undo blind reverts rather than using rollback. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

## DreamGuy

Would you mind leaving him and his talk page alone? Justified or not, he believes you have something against him. If he really does something inappropriate, why not let someone else handle it? Friday (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a tough one, then. In false memory, he made a major revert which I think is probably justified, although I wouldn't have done it, in part because I would have made even more uncivil comments than he did. Could you let him know that I'll support him on that article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So, I'm afraid the answer is I won't leave his edits alone except in those places which I followed references to his edits which I found the arguments valid. As for the block section of his talk page, he could delete the entire section, but retitling it is wrong.Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To rephrase, I'll leave him alone (or support him) in Jack the Ripper and any new articles which I hadn't been monitoring, but I'll still actively revert him in the Photoshop family or any article which I have previously been monitoring, even if I haven't actively edited. As for the section title on his talk page, I'll let Neil decide whether it's a violation. If it is, it should be excised. It's his opinion as to whether it should be referred to as unjustified that should stand, rather than DreamGuy's or El C's. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough- I wasn't trying to suggest that you curtail any normal article editing. But, when it comes to things like his user page, I think it'd be less drama all around if you avoided interacting with him as much as you reasonably can. Friday (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
When you say you'll actively revert him, I trust you only mean if a) his edit was not a good one, and b) you will explain why the revert was made. Reverting for no reason, or at least no explanation of your reasoning, particularly of a user you have had god knows how many run-ins with, could be considered pretty antagonistic. Neil  23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

## AN/I discussion

A discussion regarding an incident to which you are a party is being discussed at WP:AN/I, and I would appreciate your input. —bbatsell ¿? 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you have in mind? I'm named in 3 active discussions.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

## 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I thought you may be interested in seeing/commenting on [Talk:2006_Lebanon_War#Move_to_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict this]. Please take the sources and suggestion into consideration. --Shamir1 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of confused on your position. "Including Israel as a participant without including Hezbollah is wrong, even if it were commonly used. Including Israel as a location is problematic, as only the initial kidnapping and occasional rocket attacks were in Israel." There is no issue of participant/location. ("Israel-Lebanon conflict" infers a conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Changing it to war would infer a war between them. Remember that every war is a type of conflict, conflict does not mean not a war.) Also, we are not measuring how many attacks took place on either's soil. I dont think what you state as problematic is actually the problem being discussed. Anyway, Im not trying to attack your position, please take all of this as friendly. I want to better understand you.
Anyway, there is a list of sources from news media there. (These are titles of summaries they have published on the war--what we are trying to figure out. These are not just title or texts of random news stories.) Do you see Israel-Hezbollah War as a legitimate title? --Shamir1 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do, but it won't be accepted. (How about we list the participants in alphabetical order, making it Hezbollah-Israel War, as Hezbollah-Israel-Lebanon War is too long. (LOL).
Israel calls it the 2nd Lebanon War, so 2006 Lebanon War seems a reasonable place. I'm not sure what Lebanon calls it. Hezbollah calls it something we can't use. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You can state your opinion if you think it is a good title.
Moving back to the original was my suggestion of trying to ease this dispute. We can add a verifiable title with ...also known as... The problem is, 2006 Lebanon War really isnt verifiable. I havent seen a summary or a report on the war entitled 2006 Lebanon War from any reputable source.
"Israel calls it the 2nd Lebanon War, so 2006 Lebanon War seems a reasonable place." Does that really sound like a Wikipedia policy? We know the answer to that. Israel calls it the Second Lebanon War because it was the second time (for them) that their soldiers fought in Lebanon. It is easy to call it that strictly from an Israeli viewpoint, not a Lebanese or any other viewpoint. That is not an internationally used title or used in the English-speaking world. Also, the 1982 Lebanon War essentially has nothing to do with this war or its naming. That name may be used for an Israeli encyclopedia article; and it kind of is. As I showed, The Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews entitle their comprehensive articles on the war "Second Lebanon War". So what can we say? Easy, that it is known as the Second Lebanon War in Israel. That is what is verifiable. No other encyclopedia-like article entitles it that or even Lebanon War.
If you see Israel-Hezbollah War as a good name, I encourage you to say it too, I think it would be a good idea. I have really taken a look at all sources for the appropriate name. For Wikipedia, its all about sources, sources, sources--and that is what should be discussed. So anyway, as you know, the sources from news media are there to see.
PS - while I understand the influence of Wikipedia, the "who-knows?" possibility of the Encyclopedia of the Orient copying us is really not a legitimate argument for us to consider. --Shamir1 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

## Plural

RE: your question on the plural of Halifax (Talk:Halifax, West Yorkshire). Those of us born in [Halifax, West Yorkshire]] are known as 'Haligonians'. :o) Richard Harvey 09:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

## Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil

I see you had further interactions at Log and and Scram. Since then I've been at Ried and an old favourite, Calque. The words added at Calque pretty much tie User:R9tgokunks to 172.192.43.160, and all the rest...

Anything we can do to stop this becoming a regular social fixture? Knepflerle 11:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

## Year zero

Dear Dr. Rubin: It has been over a week since I suggested an error by Cassini in the Year Zero article. I appreciated your response to my comments. I do not find that anyone else has responded yet. I suppose that it may take some time for this to get sorted out. Since no one associated with Wikipedia has any information about my background I thought I should enter it in my User page and have done so. I have encountered extreme difficulty in making my case in the Third Millenium article (subhead - Third Millenium again). Sam HastingsSammy 22:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a case in 3rd millennium. You may have a case in year zero, but I doubt it. Neither the Julian nor the Gregorian calendars have a "year 0"; the Julian calendar, in both cases because 1 AD is in the past of when the numbering system was defined. (For what it's worth, I don't think there should be a section #third millennium in the year zero article, as the issues are irrelevant.) It should also be noted that ISO8601 is not a calendar, but a notation which can be used with either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

## RFA on Tom Cryer article

An RFA for the Tom Cryer article has been filed in which you are a party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talkcontribs) 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

## Green aspects of Virtual Reality

Arthur, I like the fact that there is an active edit of the Virtual Reality topic. You have reverted my edit, however, thus eliminating the topic. Yet you must admit there is merit to this approach. If your only objection is a mention of Second Life, then let's use another of may available examples: Raph Koster's new MetaPlace, the open source Multiverse model, Project Entropia, Sony Home, the original Alpha World... there are many. Or we can avoid the naming of any particular world and simply generalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarmein (talkcontribs) 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of those as appropriate to "virtual reality". If you can find a reference to what might be termed "immersive teleconferencing", that might be appropriate, but I don't see any of those examples — of what might be called "universe simulations" — as relating to virtual reality, or of being "green". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

## A Smile :-)

As much as we disagree, I am always pleased by your open-mindedness and rationality. I think that's what distinguishes you as an admin. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

## Hulda Regehr Clark

You have deleted the following citing BLP concerns:

• In 1993, while Clark lived and practiced in Indiana, a former patient complained to the Indiana attorney general. An investigator for the Indiana Department of Health and a deputy attorney general visited her office incognito as part of a sting operation. Clark proceeded to test the investigator and "told him he had the HIV virus [sic], but said that he did not have cancer." She told the investigator that she could cure his HIV in 3 minutes, but that he would "get it back" unless he committed to returning for six more appointments. She then ordered blood tests from a laboratory. Upon learning of the undercover investigators' status, Clark stated that everything she had told them had been a "mistake".[3]
1. ^ "How the CIA created Osama bin Laden". GreenLeft News. 2001, September 19. Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. ^
3. ^ State of Indiana vs. Hulda Clark: Probable Cause Affidavit, Filed August 16, 1993

Please explain your reasoning. This borders on aiding and abetting a criminal (which aid is being applauded immediately above) by deleting a significant part of the story. Without it we are left with an odd narrative that doesn't make much sense. She is a scam artist who got caught red-handed and the source is as official as they come - the state's deputy attorney general. I and others have allowed Levine2112 to use legal documents unfavorable to Barrett which were hosted by Bolen and Negrete - both very antagonistic to Barrett - when they were the only sources, and he certainly didn't object or even thank us for our generosity in allowing such use. That was a long time ago and I don't know the current state of those references, but that's the way it went down. Now he and you are removing evidence. I trust you to be acting in good faith, so what gives? Is this really a BLP issue, a COI issue, a RS issue, or something else? Should wikilawyering be allowed to twist Wikipedia's nose into unrecognizeability, causing Wikipedia to become an unreliable source? What would be the Solomonic solution here? There must be a way to keep this information in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 05:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the affidavit is at best, a primary source, and cannot really be used to suggest the truth of the accusations, even if reprinted by a Wikipedia:Reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the deputy attorney general was lying? That's a serious criminal offense. Are you suggesting that the further actions leading to the apprehension of Hulda Clark on a fugitive warrant were therefore based on false charges (a suggestion that has never been uttered by Hulda Clark or her lawyers)? What later happened only makes sense in light of the part you have now deleted. If there is a problem with the text used in Wikipedia, rather than the source, then why not reword the deleted paragraph and still use the sworn affidavit of the deputy attorney general as the source? If a court can accept this as true (which it obviously did, or she wouldn't have fled and later been arrested), why can't we? -- Fyslee / talk 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we could use the indictment, if referenced in a secondary source, but not the affidavit. (The affidavit was probably not supposed to be published, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

## Bilderberg

I posted this on the Talk page there. You can respond on the Bilderberg talk page under the NWO (because I think that is what the documentary is about) or you can respond on *my* talk page. I will not be coming back here to see if you have read this. Here's what I said:

"::::::::Hi. I did not read this whole discussion but I can see that it was unresolved at the last post. Personally I have no vested interest in the conspiracy theory but it does exist. I tried to post a link to a documentary I found about the link btw Bilderberg and NWO, but a user named Arthur Rubin continues to remove it without discussion or explanation. It is a little unnerving to be strong-armed on the Wiki, but alas what can one do? You can find it in the history under my name if you would like to repost it. I will try once more. If he removes it again without explanation I will consider it an edit war and ask for arbitration. I assume there might be a reason to remove it, but without giving an explanation I will just have to believe there is no good reason for removing it. Ciao. Saudade7 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)"

My take is that Alex is not a reliable source for anything, and since the Bilderberg group has real, living, people, his films cannot be used as evidence toward the truth of anything regarding the group. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I don't even know the guy. I just found the documentary and that is how I heard about Bilderberg. So I came here and read about them and then I added the link since the film was new and there was no link. I didn't pay enough attention to notice that almost all the links were conspiracy theory stuff. I am a reasonable person, I just like to know why my edits are deleted (they usually never are). Thanks. Saudade7 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

## MEBCAB Case Tax Protester

Hello!

I'm Aeon and I will be your Mediation Cabalist for your issue. I'm currently reviewing all statements, difs and said article and will be able to start the mediation soon. All involved parties if you could please leave quick note (no need to make any further statements until I'm ready to begin) saying if you are still willing to undergo mediation. Please keep in mind that the Mediation Cabal cannot and will not enforce the ultimate consensus that will hopefully be gained from this and it will be up to the involved parties to uphold the agreement. Also during the mediation all parties will remain civil (Per WP:CIVIL) and will treat each other with respect. Thank you Æon Insanity Now! 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick roger up on the mediation. Æon Insanity Now! 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE My apologies to all, my computer crashed and I was with out internet for the last few days. The Mediation is now open I will be posting my views and opinions with in the next hour. Æon Insanity Now! 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

personally i think deletion for notability should really be a right restricted to people who actually have at least SOME familiarity with the subject... i have at least 20 articles nominated for deletion simply because the editor, in their infinite wisdom, "haven't heard of the guy"...

news flash... there is this thing called "the language barrier"... just because some guy's name doesn't appear in English, or rather, latin script, doesn't mean he's not famous... this is espeically true for authors, ever heard of Jin Yong? the guys's sold over 100 million books... yet he's pretty much unknown in the English speaking world...

let me ask you, how many japanese author can you name by heart? if you can't name more than 10... then you are simply not qualified in passing judgement on the notability of japanese authors... and how many japanese philosopher / economist can you name by heart? again, if you can't name more than 10, the you really don't have any business passing judgement whether a japanese philosopher / economist is notable or not...

The book you're looking for is isbn 4-326-15128-5, a simple act of copying the name of the book into google and click search could have gotten ya what ya looked for.. even if you don't read japanese, having and search result that clearly spells amazon.co.jp should pretty much give it away... (i don't read japanese either, by the way)

http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/250-6284653-5868254?__mk_ja_JP=%83J%83%5E%83J%83i&initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%90%F3%93c%81%40%8F%B2+&Go.x=10&Go.y=14&Go=Go

if it sounds like i'm bitching, it's because i am.... please, next time use the "name more than 10" rule --if you can't name 10 things similar to an entry... then you really have no business judging its notability...

also, there are quite a few clues to whether someone is notable ... having lots of google result is one, having quite a few different editors editing an entry is another, having a long aritcle in the wikipedia entry in other languages is another... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talkcontribs) 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, being the author of a best-selling book may be adequate for listing, but sometimes it's the book that's notable and the author is secondary. Even so, there are (or were, as of this morning), no citations or references in the article, and there is at least one Vietnamese author with as much or more claimed notability who we believe is a hoax. This article should not be kept unless some citations are given. The amazon.co.jp article reference might help. (And I did copy the name of the book into google; it doesn't seem to be the most prominent book with that title.) If nothing happens in the next few days to improve the article, I'll put it up for AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

## You missed

Hi Arthur,

I was kind of fond of my clean block sheet. Please try to be more careful in future.

Hesperian 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Perhaps we should just permanently block the schools, and be done with it.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

## Hovind

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kent Hovind. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Ursasapien (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

## FYI

Be aware of the kerfuffle that I stepped in at User_talk:86.16.103.211 over the notability of Joe McDonnell events. Just fyi. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

## Dreamguy_2

Well, notifying a user of enforcement complaints is not considered vandalism, so someone should have done so, and he could have removed it at his whim. I am going to presume that Jaysweet missed the note about notification or whatever. I've notified him now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

## John W. Morgan

Welcome to the weird world of that article. There has been some long time ongoing vandalism there by several IP editors. Silly stuff mostly, like claims of a high IQ, (though the subject claims he has never been tested), and other unsourced and amazing claims. But lately they've taken to harassing User:Kirkoconnell, who has been cleaning up after them, and it has spilled over into other Cape Breton-related articles. So anyway, good to see someone else lending a hand there, just thought I would brief you on the nature of the problems. - Crockspot 00:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I followed a different IP from Christopher Michael Langan, where Morgan was claimed to be an associate of almost as high intelligence. It would be interesting to see if there really is any relationship between them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

## Repressed memory

Thanks for starting to step in at Repressed memory. You might also wanna have a look at Recovered Memory Therapy. I've already posted the beefs I have with the recent development of both articles here. Also note how they're quoting outdated sources (also by simply mentioning newer sources quoting their older ones but not explaining what purpose these quotes serve in the newer sources, could be the newer sources are trying to explain what dark age we've left behind when people became aware of what a scam RMT is) pre-dating Ofshe & Watters 1996 that mostly did away with this whole mess. --Tlatosmd 09:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

## Niels

Could you please sockblock his IP puppet, too? User talk:75.83.171.237 - otherwise he will continue from that account. Dyanega 08:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a little bit. I think there was one good edit a while back from that IP, so I don't think we could extend it beyond a month or so. Please request it on WP:AIV, so an uninvolved (and more experienced) admin can deal with it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...he removed your block notice, repeatedly, and even continued blanking the sockpuppetry page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/75.83.171.237. If he's blocked, how is he able to continue editing? Dyanega 18:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

## Invitation to Participate in a Survey

thank you for your kind attention to this message.

My name is Zhan Li and I am a PhD student at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. ( You can view my bio (scroll down) for verification here: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Doctoral/1.aspx )

I am asking approx. 200 randomly selected Wikipedia administrators if they would like to participate in a brief (it might take you about 10 minutes) online survey about their use of open content online encyclopedias. I am conducting this research for an introductory research methods class under Professor Peter Monge ( http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~monge/ ).

I hope that, if possible, you will participate in this survey. Please note that you must be 18 years older or over to participate.

Here is the link for the online survey, which begins with information pages detailing survey conditions and participant rights as well as my contact details for any questions:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=a73oeHUjW9QKvYB7fmIb0A_3d_3d

The survey will close at Pacific Standard Time 12:15 AM on Wednesday 14th November. If you have any problems accessing this link, please let me know.

I appreciate your consideration of this request.

Thank you very much Zhan Li ( email: zhanli at usc dot edu ) Zhanliusc 06:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

## Era categories

Hi Arthur. Thank you for contacting me. As you requested, see my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Time#era categories..... I will be happy to discuss any issues you may have in detail. Thank you so much, IZAK 08:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

## Loose Change 2007

No, I've seen signed documents by Avery himself of the contract on the internet. I will have to find it. Until then, stop deleting simply because you don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil in Crawford (talkcontribs) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex is not a WP:RS about anything other than what he says, and I'm not entirely sure he's a reliable source about what he said. He's certainly not reliable about what he did or does. That being said, we could leave the statement in place with an appropriate template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

## Alex Jones' websites citations

What, in opinion, should we do about it? Should we take off the unnecessary ones and/or delete the information that the sources provide? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Kevin 17:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well? Kevin 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm not sure which articles you're talking about, but....
1. His websites fail WP:EL and WP:RS except, possibly, in his article. I'd say they even fail in regard articles on his works, but that's close. So, my suggestion is to delete all trace of them on anything other than Alex Jones (radio).
2. Even in Alex Jones (radio), we really can't use them for anything other than what he said at the time of download. There's little indication that radio shows and transcripts have not been reedited to clarify his, say, predictions. I lean against there being any reference to them, except as sources to what he is saying now (i.e., at the time of download).
Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

## Erdos number categories

You are a brave man to mention Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1 in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_10#Category:Erd.C5.91s_numbers! Thincat 09:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to, didn't I? It is a category, after all, and anyone could check. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

## Edit Wars on Vito Corleone

Greetings, Arthur Rubin. I, of course, am an editor of Wikipedia and I constantly try to find the correct information for fictional characters and their biographies, etc. Recently, I edited characters from The Godfather films and remove both unverifiable and false information. However, on Vito Corleone, I seem to be entering an "edit war" with User:24.186.50.66 (see Special:Contributions/User:24.186.50.66 and history of Vito Corleone). He keeps changing the dates on the birth date and death date of the character, but he is incorrect. I have The Godfather DVD Collection, which comes with a Bonus Materials DVD. As you can see on the article, I sourced/referenced the Bonus Materials for the birth date and death date. I can take a screenshot to prove the reference/source to you, from the "Family Tree" which states Vito Corleone's birth date/death date (actually, only the birth/death years, which is what the IP keeps changing). I would just like to ask you, since you're an administrator, could you please let the IP know that he must stop editing the article with false information? Please and thank you. Notify me if you want my proof, sir. To let you know, the correct birth year is 1892 and the death date is 1954. --Victor (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deciding on the "true" date of death of a fictional character who appears in multiple media and multiple versions is problematic, at best. We have, at least, the novel, the movie, and the video game, and as the movie article points out, there are slight differences in versions in the movie releases. They probably don't extend to there being different birth and death dates, but.... What I can do is request that the anon not change sourced data without a source of his own, but I don't know if such a source might exist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I can tell you from experience that the video game does not state any such birthdate/deathdate, regardless of the fact that it is based off the first film. Secondly, the DVD collection is based strictly on the films, not the novel, therefore the film version birth/death dates are canonical as put by Francis Ford Coppola (the director of the films) in the Bonus Materials. As for the novel, I am unsure if it states a death or birth date, which it might, though I have never read it. Like I said though, I can take a screenshots straight from the bonus materials to show you the "Family Tree" if you wish. Like you said though, I think it'd be best if you just let the IP know that he/she cannot change sourced information without his/her own source. Thanks. --Victor (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

## Just to say thanks

.. for keeping an eye out for the chiropractic article. I am always pleased to see that you have kept those vandals at bay. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

## Jonas Salk

Hi, because you made a recent edit to Jonas Salk, I wanted to inform you that I am planning on bringing the article to FAC. Are you interested? Leranedo (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just got him on my vandal watch, as it's frequently vandalized for some reason. I don't think I could help bring to FA status. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dr Rubin

What do you mean "the article should fail on its own merit". May I ask you if you have taken the time to consider just a bit Alan Butler's theory. As a mathematician, don't you find it fascinating the Megalithic people could have been cognizant with a geometry which could have preceded ours (360-degree geometry)?

To sum things up: 360-degree geometry is known to have been "invented" in Sumer. Now Babylon, Assur and Nineveh are all located on Salt Lines locations, which means: if you trace Salt Lines all round the globe, you will find that Assur and Niniveh both are on 366-degree geometry parallels. What is more, they are located on the 36th and 37th parallels respectively (i.e. on each side of latitude 36.6 Megalithic degrees). Babylon is on a longitudinal line (just like Stonehenge), which means their respective longitudes are spaced by an integral number of degrees.

Isn't it tempting to think Babylon has been founded on its location AFTER the invention of the 366-degree geometry? 360-degree would then be a simplification of a geometry (366-degree geometry), itself ultimately based on a 366-day calendar.

The biggest Megalithic sites of Britain (Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury and West Kenneth Long Barrow) are all located along the same Salt Line. So is the biggest site in Scotland, the Ring of Brodgar. It is precisely located on the 60th 366-degree geometry parallel, and it was made of... exactly 60 standing stones!

If Butler is still not widely known it doesn't mean he hasn't hit on one of the greatest mathematical and historical discoveries of modern times.

I'd love to have your informed opinion on that. --Snicoulaud 21:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you (by whom I mean all those you have supported either set of "Salt Lines") done analysis as to whether the 366-degree "salt lines" pick up more ancient cities than 360-degree or 354-degree lines. If not, the "results" are virtually worthless, and we can consider them discredited per se, because no one else would have done that analysis. Also, have you allowed for the ellipsoidal earth in your calculations? I think that latitude lines can be offset up to about 10 arc minutes from where you might think they are. Consider the difference between "geodetic", "geodesic", and "geocentric" latitude. (Yes, I've worked on geodesy projects before.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The amazing thing is that these Salt Lines virtually pick up most ancient capitals before Rome (at least the greatest), as well as related key sites, in the Old World, including Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury, West Kennet Long Barrow (Britain), the Ring of Brodgar and the Stones of Stenness in Orkney (Scotland), Babylon (and Baghdad, maybe coincidentally), Assur and Niniveh (Mesopotamia), Thebes (Valley of the Kings) and Abu Simbel (Egypt), Harappa (Indius Civilization), Mycenae, Argos, Tiryns, Dodona and Athens (Mycenian Greece), Hattusa (Hittite civ.) and Alesia (Gaul). As for the New World, Salt Lines also pick up THE MOST ANCIENT capitals of the first great civilizations, including San Lorenzo, Teotihuacan, Cuicuilco and even Chichen Itza (more recent, so it might just be coincidental) in Mexico, and Caral and Tiwanaku in Southern America! So what I just quoted are virtually all of the world's most ancient capitals of GREAT civilizations between the period 3100 BC-1200 BC (Old World), and c.2630 BC-400 BC (New World).
Let's follow your logic and see how many of these cities fall on the (Greenwich-based) modern 360-degree lines (with the same degree of accuracy, that is, with a margin of + or - 3 minutes of arc max.) and compare: the Ring of Brodgar, the Stenness Stones, Hattusa and Caral. The result is quite simple: 4 instead of 26. That is, 6.5 times less! Please explain me that! Add the funny "coincidence" mentioned last time that Brodgar doesn't stand on any line but precisely on the 60th parallel North (with 60 stones in the circle!), that Assur and Nineveh are located on the 36th and 37th parallels North (on each side of latitude 36.6 degrees) and that Teotihuacan is not on any line but on the 20th parallel North (!), it is starting to make a lot of "coincidences", isn't it?
The remark about the Earth being ellipsoidal, although apt, doesn't seem to be relevant in our case (the modern lines obviously take it into account and the 366-degree system has just been "modernly" established by extrapolating from them). Using the GPS positions of the sites and the new system of reference, the resulting errors are very small, if not tiny or existant at all.
The adjective "geocentric" doesn't seem to be relevant in our case. And as far as I know, "geodesic distances" are not relevant either. So the right answer would be geodetic latitudes and longitudes, that is, meridians and parallels in the same way as we have them today on Earth, except that in 366-degree geometry, the interval between lines is slightly shorter.--84.100.6.168 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)--Snicoulaud 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As was pointed out in our latitude article, the difference between different definitions of latitude can be as large as 11 arc minutes (modern; 360) in temperate latitudes, so it's important which definition is used. "geocentric", "geodesic", and "geodetic" are my terms as used in my last geodesy project, "geocentric" is the angle between the line from the point to the center of the earth and the equatorial plane; "geodetic" is the angle between the normal to the ellipsoid (or, perhaps, the local vertical) and the equatorial plane (which is more likely if astronomical observations were used), and "geodesic" divides equally the distance along lines of longitude (more likely if "conventional" mapping was used). As they differ by a number of minutes of arc, and the accuracy you were asserting above is ±3 minutes of arc, it makes a difference which system is used. So — which system IS used. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dr
I've just read the article on latitude and, although it doesn't refer to "geodesic" latitude, it is clear from both your explanation and the article that Salt Lines must probably been understood as "geodetic" latitudes or "common" latitudes (in the sense that these "common" latitudes refer to something similar as today but with 366 lines instead of 360). What is more it seems clear that, if Salt Lines are to be validated someday by historical science, they're very likely to have been developed from astronomical observations.
This being said, the definition of latitude is not particularly relevant for most of the locations I pointed out earlier, for the majority of them is located on longitudinal lines or meridians (which if I understand well are not affected by the rotundity of the Earth).
A little additional experiment I've just done. This time I "shoved" modern meridians 30 minutes east of Greenwich, just to see if I would pick up more of the 26 locations referred to earlier. I didn't. The parallels not moving by definition, I picked up a total of 4 cities (on parallels).
I tried again the experiment by shoving modern meridians 15 minutes east of Greenwich. This time I picked up 3 more locations (Assur, San Lorenzo and Tiwanako), which makes a total of 3 + 4 = 7 locations, i.e. still 3.7 times less than with 366-degree geometry. And I again tried, this time by shoving modern meridians 15 minutes west of Greenwich. That time I picked up 5 more locations (Mycenae, Argos, Tiryns, Athens and Dodona), which makes a total of 5 + 4 = 9 locations, i.e. 2.8 times less than with 366-degree geometry. But please note that all these locations are in Greece. These locations are located on 3 neighbouring Salt Lines so it is "normal" that in this case (in a small country like Greece) they adjust to the modern meridians, the distance between them being not very different from 366-degree geometry meridians when you consider a small interval of 3 or 4 lines. So the result of picking up so many cities in Greece in this case might be the consequence, if Butler is right, of these cities having been placed along Salt Lines in the first place.
So again, my question is: if not compelling to you, isn't the evidence starting to make you think a bit? Think of the primary importance of all the locations I pointed out earlier, and the mysterious fact that all of them are "picked up" by a single system of reference. Doesn't it seem mathematically unlikely, or even highly unlikely, that this be the mere result of chance? I'm not trying to convince you. On the opposite, I need to have the objective view of a mathematician on that.---- Snicoulaud (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There's too much selection bias. We need a list of ancient sites, either selected by someone not affiliated with either the 366 or 360 theory, or selected before the theories appeared, and then run an adaptive analysis to select the optimum number of "salt lines", assuming (3 arc minutes) a 5% margin of error. (The adaptive analysis needs to adjust the longitude lines for each number of lines.) If that produces "366", there might be something there. If it produces "360", that would support the other theory. If it produces 354, 370, or some other nearby number, that discredits the theories completly. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

## Institute for Creation Research

What is it about the overly reactionary WP:OWN in these related articles? You have not even given any explanation, which is highly inappropriate. Please give an explanation for your revert. Have you even consulted the source? Either you haven't read it or you haven't read it properly. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

## Template:On RM

A template you created, Template:On RM, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}}` tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

## Template:CREnumber

Looking at it again, you're right, I erred. IceKarma 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

## Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

Thanks for your help on this article. I took off the questionable picture, but expect the "owners" to react soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

## A/An Historian

Hey there. I noticed you undid my changes to the David Irving article in which I changed all mention of "an historian" to "a historian". You did mention in your edit summary that "a historian" is technically correct, I noticed. Anyway ... I was trying to get some consistency in the article. When you reverted my edit, you didn't also change all mention of "a historian" to "an historian", so again, there is inconsistency. I don't really mind which choice is used ("a" vs "an"), but consistency should be upheld. Which do you think should be used? I noticed, when looking at the article for "Historian", that "a historian" is used. This is why I changed it to what I did. So ... let me know what you think. Wikidsoup [talk] 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

## Citation request in Non-standard analysis

A recent edit [45] posted a fact tag on a particular claim about the purported advantages of non-standard analysis. I'm not sure what would be considered a valid citation (statements by Halmos who was certainly no fan of this particular subject or Connes?). Although I am an aficionado of nonstandard analysis, I thought this claim was completely non-controversial (in fact I originally put it in I believe).--CSTAR (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

## Vegas

Hi. I can understand if you want a disamb page for Las Vegas but that is not what you reverted to. Can you please explain why you want redundant articles on the city; Las Vegas and Las Vegas, Nevada? --Alfadog 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an extended sub-disambiguation page for Las Vegas, Nevada. I may have made a mistake, but this article was serving as a modified Las Vegas, Nevada (disambugation) page. That title doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with a disamb page but the article there should be removed and a standard disamb page made. The talk page already mentions a discrepancy between the two articles and that is the risk of having two articles, the other being that a reader might not realize we have a more extensive article elsewhere and that is a disservice. I will work on it as time permits if that is agreeable to you. --Alfadog 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, we already have Las Vegas (disambiguation) and if we need a bit more drill-down then I think it should be done there and Las Vegas can redirect to that disamb page. How does that sound? --Alfadog 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The principle of least suprise suggests that Las Vegas should be or redirect to a disambiguation page with the most common meanings, which are these 3. I think it would be best to hold off on changing the direction of the article, without asking for comment on (at least) the Las Vegas talk page, those of the three related articles, and Las Vegas (disambiguation). It seems to have been stable for at least a month.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that there are over 500 incoming links (although some may be from templates) suggests we should be careful about changing the meaning. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I would rather be WP:BOLD. I really think this is a no-brainer. Expand the Las Vegas (disambiguation) and redirect Las Vegas there. I doubt we would get much in the way of comments and would rather just work it out between us if you have any objection. Re the links, the redirect will handle those and I can look for any templates that need changing. --Alfadog

On 3rd thought and looking at some of the links, I think it better to leave it in place but strip out most of the dup content and reformat it as a standard disamb page. How about I will do that and see if it looks better to you. --Alfadog 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I pared it down, let's see if anyone objects. But after doing it I am more convinced than ever that it should simply redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada as that is what is expected when one enters "Las Vegas" in the search box. This adds an unnecessary step. --Alfadog 15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

## in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Day care sex abuse hysteria.

### December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Day care sex abuse hysteria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Nathan 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

## SRA article

Arthur, the SRA article was in much better shape before a handful of axe-grinders showed up and started putting in fringe sources and adding original research and OR by synthesis. That's why I reverted to the older version (mid-October). I think there is a coordinated attack on the SRA article by a handful of fringe individuals and I would be interested to know if Bio, "Abuse truth", and "West world" know each other in real life. 168.30.196.235 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me the date of the version you reverted to, and I'll check the history around that point to see if I concur. It should be pointed out, however, that some of the dispute on recovered memory therapy is that one group is using fringe 1980s and 1990s papers, while the other is using fringe recent papers. Neither group seems to have good sources. So far, for the most part, my work in those articles is noting AT's rewriting of history; I haven't had time to see if the historical articles she uses have been contradicted by modern research. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just today, I've dug up a bunch of papers on SRA from JSTOR, which catalogs academic articles published in journals. As I suspected, the consensus of these articles is that SRA is a crock of bull. Once I log in at home under my account, I will work on incorporating this information into the article. I already removed a few of the worst POV statements and fringe theories. 168.30.196.235 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

## List of Pseudo...., Integrative Manual Therapy

Is it ok to say "Integrative Manual Therapy" is a technique "utilized by physical therapists?" If not please explain. Anthon01 (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unless the source is reliable and states that. The QW links you supplied earlier did not state that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations I grouped all of the articles that have been spun off the original article into summary style. I did this to assist the reader. Your edit summary said that it was probably a violation of the MoS. I've looked at the MoS, and I don't see any violation. Can you point me to the section that you think this violates? Thank you, Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it violates WP:ALSO, but I could be mistaken. If you re-add them, I probably won't revert again. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a recap of the subarticles, and was not (strictly speaking) in the "see also". But I have not added them back, but I do think it helps the reader. From WP:MOS: " Links should add to the user's experience..". Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

## Incivilty on RMT

I find your edit, Talk:Recovered memory therapy, 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) "I could answer the paedophilia question, but I cannot without writing it as a personal attack against one or the other editors, so I won't. I think Biaothanatoi should be able to figure it out from that, though.", extremely uncivil. Implying that one or more of your fellow editors are engaged in paedophilia is, to me, unacceptable and not an action I will let go by. I suggest that you do what you can to apologise personally to the editors involved, apologise on the discusion page and then get the insult removed as best you can. SmithBlue (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The intended implication was that one of the editors accused editors who remove his (almost certainly irrelevant) sections from RMT and SRA of supporting paedophilla. (I suppose that relates to observed conduct on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be a violation.) But, thinking it over, it could easily be misinterpreted. What do you suggest I do? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
With what you explain here, I'd suggest making it clear that you intended no incivility and leave it at that. Editing at RMT looks like hell to me - I'd be looking to get an editor or two excluded from editing that article. SmithBlue (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

## Template:Rescue

As you probably anticipated, what you did was my next step. I had intended to raise the issue on the template talk page first, but the TfD gives plenty of ammo to use. Also, I would have moved all the {{rescue}} templates in use to talk pages. I've done so now. Mangojuicetalk 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was writing from work, and had to get back to work. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

## Predicted as much

Could you explain the revert on Institute for Creation Research? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems biased, and possibly factually inaccurate as to the origins. No sources are presented, but it says in the new version that it split from Creation Science Research Center. For a couple of the third-paragraph changes, neither version is justified or NPOV, but I didn't feel like deleting the entire sentence(s) or clause(s) in question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Biased? Really? Maybe you could be more specific where you see bias, though the point about identifying sourcing is well taken. Normally disputed content is marked with a fact tag rather than a wholesale revert of an extensive edit.Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Also please note, the content you restored has no inline citations either. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, biased. It implies that YEC has a basis in Christianity, which is false. The basis (in this context) is Biblical inerrancy. (The new version also repeats ICR being Christian in an additional location. If it's in the lead, it shouldn't also be in the #Background section.) Does anyone else think it's important the ICR is Christian? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it's important? It's no secret they do--they frequently characterize the work they do as "ministry". It was formed in a Christian college, and self-claims faithfulness to a Christian belief and mission throughout--in its tenets, its faculty statements, to its supporters, etc. It's of importance as well to independent historians of the subject, including Numbers and Larson, as well as to its critics such as Scott and Pigliucci. Generally the lead paragraph serves as a stand alone overview of the material that follows, and little to nothing in it should appear there by itself without tying into the fuller development of the subject which follows it. It's hardly "biased" to characterize this as a Christian organization. I really don't understand the objection that there is some claim in the edit that YEC itself is a Christian concept. The ICR is in truth all of it, committed to a sectarian Christian view, YEC, and Biblical inerrancy. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

## Logic programming

Are the issues that you and others were discussing back in April 07 resolved? It's not clear from discussion. (Would you mind replying at Talk:Logic programming?) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you've run across the person who's been adding content to this and other articles inappropriately. I've dragged them onto my talk page, and should be able to educate them about appropriate addition of content and how to use the talk page. I'm not qualified to judge the notability of the item, however. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. I've already blocked them once for spamming. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

## Request for mediation not accepted

 A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Recovered Memory Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.

## Heim theory

During the mid-1950s, Burkhard Heim verbally presented his theory to two sessions of the International Astronuatical Federation and in writing to the Gravity Research Foundation. It was then published in 1959 in an obscure rocketry journal. In each case, he emphasized the propulsion aspect of his work. Heim's work was initially presented as a propulsion theory. Tcisco (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why talk to me? I haven't been an active editor in Heim Theory for some time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The above comments stemmed from the edit information cited on the Revision History page of Heim theory for 30 october 2007, 23:44 UTC. Tcisco (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. That was unsourced. If you could provide a source.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

## Recovered Memory Therapy

Hi, thanks for your comment on my user page.
I also recently put a few suggestions on the RMT talk page, as to some ways that it could be improved.
A fair bit of outdated and inaccurate information has been creeping in, and I think quite a bit of further work is needed. I must confess, I'm relatively new at WP editing, so taking it one step at a time. Cheers Matt
MatthewTStone 07:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I E-mailed the FMSF asking for references to counter some of User:Abuse truth's staetments, and I've got a few, now. I'll have to work out exactly how to insert them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I am putting this in the right place. If not, I apologize to Arthur Rubin. I am new. Why check with FMSF. There is no DSM classification for repressed memory.

19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)72.49.115.250 (talk)

Interesting. I don't remember who claimed there was a DSM-IV classification for repressed memory, if it's not User:Abuse truth, but you might note that on the appropriate talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, I've been watching the ongoing to and fro in the "Trauma Model" section, but not sure what to do about it. I might have a crack at summarising what AT is trying to insert, as a compromise. A while ago, I did put a sentence at the end "A related but distinct topic to that of memories being recovered in therapy, is the theory of repressed memory..." I hoped that would serve to re-direct people to the precise topic of RM, making AT's lengthy additions unnecessary, but to no avail. Also I have a feeling the whole term "Trauma Model of Psychopathology" itself might need a source, as I'm not entirely sure there are a separate group of therapists who formally work under that model. Could be wrong on that though. Cheers Matt. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

## User:Charles T. Le

Hello Arthur. Please could you look at the edits of this recently arrived user to Florentin Smarandache, where he blanked whole sourced sections on physics and poetry without justification, and Progress in Physics, which he has nominated for deletion. I have left a welcome and a message on his talk page. I am no fan of FS, but all these edits seem to have broken every WP rule. He is not editing, he is censoring. I reverted his changes to Florentin Smarandache. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He has now reverted his blanks without discussion and has not responded to my advice. I have given a second warning. If he continues like this, he is effectively behaving as a vandal (even if well-intentioned). Please could you do something about him (for example like encouraging him to contribute content)? Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have identified the vandal here. Mathsci (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Charles T. Le is the user name of a former sockpuppet of Florentin Smarandache on wikipedia [46]. Details were provided by User:Tim Starling here [47]. Please do a check user to trace his account. If he is indef banned the nomination of Progress in Physics should be disqualified. Smarandache obviously does not like what WP says about him or his journals. Mathsci (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have reported this probable sockpuppetry/disruption on WP:AN/I. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

## Quackwatch and reverts

Thanks for your note at my talk page. And yes, I'm holding off moving the barnstar to my user page, until after there's a little evidence that I actually helped :-) I had assumed that 3RR referred to reverting the same item 3 times, not the same editor, but I'll go read the policy now. Actually I mentioned 3RR in the comment with the sly intent that ScienceApologist will be "outvoted" by several editors contributing 2 reverts each, but I'm not so sure (yet) that the hostility level is that high. Remarkable place, wiki, huh? Pete St.John (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 3RR refers to 3 reverts on the same article, regardless of section or editor reverted. Be careful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I had made the same assumption about 3RR - that it only counts for the same revert - not the case, it applies to any reverts made to a single article in one 24 hour period by a single editor. I learned that lesson the hard way! Further, note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if 3RR has not been violated. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

## Thoughts on unsourced materials

Thanks for getting the link to go straight there - I still havent got all the tech stuff happening - or all the other stuff either for that matter. Am reading about disruptive editors though and am willing to follow protocols if we find disruption. (explicitly: I do not see you being in this category.) Would like to see RMT editing being only slightly interesting rather than a blood sport. SmithBlue (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am curious about your thought on how I should respond to this roundabout (and false) meatpuppetry accusation: here: [48]. I tried to ask Ronz nicely to revert, but he wrote it off as harrasment: [49] Why do I come to you with this? Well, you're an admin and since you tend to be on the other side of the fence from me content-wise, I thought it might be good to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arggggh. I don't think think you're meatpuppets, merely fellow travelers, although the timing in one of the instances is suggestive. Even then, taking over from another editor when they are about to hit 3RR is not necessarily bad. I've requested help in the article or project talk page a number of times when I was about to hit 3RR and I thought it clear that consensus was on my side. But I don't really have any suggestions for you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

## Pie

Pie!

Hello. I just want to give you some pie for making me laugh hard. I was browsing, and found your comment, "I remember that happening. As you seem not to believe that false memories exist, that should be adequate until citations can be provided." That's the funniest thing I've seen here. Very clever. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Arthur:

If you had taken 15 seconds to follow the external link in Golden ratio before you reverted this edit, you would have seen that the edit you reverted corrected an error, so your reversion restored the error. (Math professor Ron Knott is in fact the author of the external link; Don Knotts was Andy Griffith's sidekick.) Of course, I respect those who patrol for vandalism, realize the importance and frustration of reverting vandalism, and am aware that anons commit a disproportionate amount of the vandalism that plagues Wikipedia. I am also aware of the excellent work you do as an admin and an editor (I follow some of the same subjects that you do). Nevertheless, many (perhaps a majority of) anon edits are in good faith, and many of those are actually improvements. We all have the duty to assume good faith, and Wikipedia is the better for our doing so.

A few days ago, a newbie added a factually correct entry to 2070s, that the U.S. tricentennial will occur on July 4, 2076. While I was in the process of trying to improve the entry (adding a link to Bicentennial and explaining that the tricentennial would be the 300th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence), you deleted the entry without explanation. I discarded what I was doing and deferred to what I assumed to be your considered and more experienced judgment. An anon has since restored the entry in the same poor form that you and I both found it.

I hope you do not mind this suggestion, and I do appreciate the pressures on your time, but please check the facts before you revert or delete. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 09:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about Ron. I don't think I have direct access to that journal, so I can't verify. About the anniversaries, WikiProject Years is fairly clear that anniversaries should not be listed unless associated with a known commemoration. WikiProject Time is silent on the matter, but I assume that the same rules should apply, otherwise, for example, each future millennium would have a millennial anniversary of most significant events, thereby cluttering the articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

## Informal complaint filed

Arthur Rubin, I have filed an informal complaint against you here for intimidation and assuming bad faith. Please understand that we have to work together as a community if we're going to make a community project work. We may not always agree, but we can respect each other. Daniel Santos (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I don't feel any need to respond at the moment, as the first response seems to agree that my actions were based on a reasonable interpretation of your message. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

## On QW - JSE's peer-review

Why is JSE's peer-review in question. Could you provide a reference? Anthon01 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 9 has a lot of discussion about JSE. (I think 8 and 7 also had some discussion about it.) As far as I can tell, the consensus is that Kaufmann's article was not reviewed, for a number of reasons: (1) JSE claims to be peer-reviewed, but there is an editorial denying the validity of peer review. (2) The time from submission until publication is too short for anyone to have actually reviewed the article. (3) finally, it's all Kaufmann's opinion, anyway, so there is nothing to review, other than his selection of sources. On the other hand, Kaufmann may personally be a WP:RS, as is allowed in the WP:SPS section. On the gripping hand, WP:SPS specifically states it doesn't apply to articles about living persons, and Quackwatch is frequently confused with Stephen Barrett, so, perhaps Kaufmann can't be used. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

## Re: Feb. 8

• Someone put in hoax entries which is why I reverted it, although I probably should have just removed the hoax entries. I may have just been tired. JuJube (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

## Satanic ritual abuse

Just dropping you a line to say good luck with Satanic ritual abuse. I gave up on it a while back and de-watchlisted it. The only thing I can say was I actually was making progress negotiating between AT, Bt, IMJ and the other sporadic editors towards a consensus, then everything went to hell. From what I've seen, with lots of calm talk page discussion everyone can move towards a consensus (and politely), but I don't know what the chances are now. Now it looks like all hope of a consensus version is blown to hell and there's going to be much disgusted hand-waving. And blocks, page protection, personal attacks, tears, sweat, gore... Good luck, I wish I could offer a bucket of patience as well. WLU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rubin, regarding your warning on my userpage.
The links between CSICOP, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and the pro-paedophile publication Paidika have been in the public domain since the mid-1990s and they constitute verifiable historical information that are clearly relevant to the assessment of the credibility of CSICOP. I am not to blame for the fact that an organisations associations reflect poorly on that organisation.
Your editing history on the Satanic Ritual Abuse page is tendentious and unconstructive, and your treatment of Abuse Truth has been particularly insulting. You've failed to presume good faith in relation to any editor with a different POV to you. I don't know why you remain so active on the page, since you have done little beyond fermenting conflict and reverting other editors changes without grounds. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As I was going to say on your talk page, any association between the the FMSF and "the pro-paedophile" (misspelled) movement is in your mind. The movement may use the FMSF, but the FMSF is certainly as scientific, unbiased, and in support of children, as your AAA group. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that Ralph Underwager, the founder of the FMSF, was "scientific" and "unbiased" when he stated that paedophilia is a "responsible" lifestyle choice, or that most women sexually assaulted in childhood enjoyed the experience? --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

## 3RR Violation

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wenatchee_sex_ring&action=history

(cur) (last) 07:42, 19 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (I'm sorry, I really can't take YOUR word for it; Undid revision 178869477 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 03:14, 19 December 2007 Abuse truth (Talk | contribs) (8,402 bytes) (disagree - they are obviously authentic newspaper articles in the pictures) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:35, 19 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (The sources are UNTRACABLE newspaper articles, and need to be verified. Undid revision 178861784 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 02:29, 19 December 2007 Abuse truth (Talk | contribs) (8,402 bytes) (the sources are reliable ones - newspaper articles) (undo)

(cur) (last) 16:20, 18 December 2007 Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (8,473 bytes) (Change to [verification needed], then if you won't accept the more rational tag. Undid revision 178643980 by Abuse truth (talk)) (undo) Abuse truth (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for reminding me about the 3RR rule in relation to a reversion I made on the State-sponsored terrorism article. My edit followed the past week's concerted attack by two South African editors on Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 — mainly the South Africa luggage swap theory — and other articles linked to it such as State sponsored terrorism#South Africa. Their campaign is evidenced by the edit histories of Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 and by this extract from User talk:Deon Steyn#Conspiracy Theories:

"Thanks for your help with Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Any chance you can lend a hand with some of the articles that have been linked to it? Also see State-sponsored terrorism. Cheers Socrates2008 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)"

I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy applies to this sort of concerted editing, and should be grateful for your views as an Administrator on whether it should be tolerated.Phase4 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to clutter your talk page further or waste you time, but this user (Phase1/2/4 / PJHaseldine) has now been blocked:
Thanks for your time and effort in calming things down. --Deon Steyn (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

## Are you serious?

Your comment: "It didn't say "some point out" before, with that version, it needs {who}, and it needs to be a mainstream {who}".
I added "some point out" to address your concern that it looked like NIST said it. As for "who". There must be 4 billion people in the world that could support it as it is a statement of fact similar to "fire is hot" (obvious to anyone who checks) so pick any you like.

Your comment: "Added two more tags; faster is FALSE, even if the 600 mi/h is true, as the planes appeared to have been in a power dive, and fuel requires a relevant cite."
See Collapse of the World Trade Center#Impacts of airliners and compare for yourself. The source for the 600 is NIST so unless you assume NIST lies then you have to assume 600 is true. 600 is faster than 440 and 540 the last time I went to school so calling "faster" "false" is ...well....false. The fuel? NIST accepts that each plane had around 10,000 gl when they hit. The study reference NIST found indicated 23,000 gl. You are asking for a "relevant cite" to prove that 23,000 is more than 10,000???????? Is the local kindergarten a relevant cite?

This sentence has been in the artical a long time with no problems so why is it such a big deal all of a sudden and being reverted for such lame reasons? I expected better of an experienced editor such as yourself. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of SYN. Source one says the relevant speed is 600 mi/h, which NIST found, but didn't necessary accept. NIST says the actual speed is 540 mi/h. That the relevant speed is faster than the actual speed is SYN. Also, furthermore, (although this is WP:OR), the speed is irrelevant. The kinetic energy of impact is the relevant factor toward physical damage to the building, and these planes are heavier than a 707. (What NIST said the actual model of the plane used in the study they found wasn't reported in the article, so I assume it's the 707 which they were pointed to in the study they couldn't find.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this reference ok?
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964 (obtained by NIST), described the findings of an analysis of the effects of an aircraft impact. The studies mathematical calculations covered 21,000 pages: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
(Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132)(NIST, 2005, p.70-71.) Wayne (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

## Rescue template changes

Please do not be quite so bold in changing a template for a project which you apparently have issues with. Unless all templates are now being treated in such a manner please cease and desist. You have been asked nicely twice now to engage the issue on the talk page and I hope you either leave the issue alone or take your proposed modifications to the talk page. Benjiboi 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, the TfD result was specified that the template may not be used on article pages. Indicating that it may is clearly improper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

## TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

## Fingerboard AfD

My comment is only a reply to yours, not intended as a !vote. I was just pointing out that it being listed in multiple languages could have been due to mechanical translations, which could be speedy-deleted on the other Wikipedia if it were brought to their attention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

## Brain Wave

I am writing about the article Brain Wave The reason I wrote that they were similar is because in pebble in the sky the synapsifier lowers the resistance of the Milan sheets in the brain to make Schwartz (the main character) more intelligent. This sounded similar to what happen in Brain Wave. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to being this up, I am inexperienced with wikipedia. Thank you. The Isiah (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I missed that. Still, we need a reliable source that makes the connection. (We also need a WP:RS which says something about the book. I still lean toward deletion, per the Wikipedia:deletion policy, unless you can find some comments about the book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

## Alex Jones

Youtube is never a reliable source, even as a primary source. I'm worried about the extreme PoV of your edit summaries. I'll delete it myself in awhile. Cheers though! Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a source, Alex's oqn archives. But, whether on youtube or not, Alex is not a reliable source about what he said. (This would be the case whether or not he had a reputation for truthfulness (or truthiness, for that matter).) Your edit, on the other hand, falls under WP:POINT at best, and is pure WP:VANDALISM unless you think the article is better with the unsourced section. If you don't fix it with 5 minutes, an AN/I report will be filed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summaries were wholly unacceptable PoV and did not specifiy a valid reason for the deletion, which could encourage other editors into naively thinking the source was solid and you deleted it only through extreme PoV. Hence, I was trying to stabilize the article and if I have led you to believe I violated WP:POINT, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't delete material with edit summaries which cite an unsupportable reason for your edits. If this happens again, to avoid any misunderstanding that I might be editing only to make a snarky point, I'll either leave a note here or on the article talk pageMeanwhile you have edit warred and more or less violated WP:3RR. Edit warring is never acceptable. Also, please read WP:VANDALISM for an understanding of what is considered vandalism on this wiki. Your remark about vandalism is unacceptable and in itself a violation of WP policy. As for your threats, I'll leave it up to others to read them. Either way, I am sincerely sorry if I have upset you. You may want to let cooler heads have a look at this for now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does intentionally restoring material which you believe to be in violation of Wikipedia policies not fall in that category? If you were to revert and then immmediately undo the reversion, giving a reason you consider better, that would be different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I thought this edit summary was a very clear hint the edit would not stand for long. Second, I was sincerely trying to enhance the integrity of the article by not accepting what I viewed as unsupportable edit summaries (which I also explained above). I'll handle this through the talk pages if it comes up again. Either way, I think we do agree the cited source itself doesn't rise to WP:V or WP:RS and I hope you understand my worries about how edit summaries can sway subsequent edits. Third, WP:VANDALISM is often mistakenly cited by highly sincere editors of controversial articles. You should have assumed good faith. Given all this, I think this flare up is over now, sorry it even got that far. All the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

## 3rr

You are now on the edge of violating WP:3RR. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

## User Talk - Definition of Mathematics

I submitted an addendum in the past, proposing a more pragmatic, simpler definition to descibe the value, power and beauty of mathematics and quantitative, scientific knowledge in real life activities. That definition was sticken out, and a reference to some higher "math" entity was invoked. I can not remember the time of that rejection, but it happened. Again, and even though I am a mathematics, science, engineering professional, instructor and credentialed teacher, my opinion, and the fact that students are suffering from much of the arrogance of our mathematics establishment defining their curriculum was not respected. Perhaps if I trusted Wikipedia more, I could resubmit it again, and stand into a dispute with whoever does not agree, as necessary.

Thank you very much for your attention.

F Razo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.11.138 (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)