User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2015

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2013

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Happy New Year Arthur Rubin!

Happy New Year!

Arthur Rubin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Jim1138 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

2014 Deaths

The consensus at Talk:2014/Archive 1 is that Baltacha was not notable enough. I checked Frederiksen's non-English articles and found 3 that were created after his death, so he fails the minimum, besides which many of the others are stubs/clones so he doesn't seem particularly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Rfd2m

Template:Rfd2m has been nominated for merging with Template:Rfd2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked WP:RY

The sports contests I listed are neither local nor annual, so I don't know why you removed them. Serendi^podous 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at WT:RY is that, among regularly scheduled sporting events, only the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup qualify. If you want to argue otherwise, please make the argument. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement request

I am filing a request for discretionary sanction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because of your editing. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More block evasion

I suspect that you will get a ping about this since the IP is reverting some of your edits but I thought I would provide you with these links 99.112.213.171 (talk · contribs) is currently making the same edits that this IP 99.112.212.16 (talk · contribs) did. I was unaware that this one 99.112.212.211 (talk · contribs) was part of the situation when I reported them to AIV yesterday so I thought I would let you know about them if you want to add them to your list User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Status of words used in scientific proofs

Hi, Arthur Rubin! I ask you as an experienced wikipedian about the wiki-status of some words used in scientific proofs like considered or hypothesized. Can they be accidentally included in the category wiki-weasel words?--193.231.20.25 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends on circumstances. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Within a proof, it's weaselly. Outside, it may be a factual statement of ignorance knowledge of the topic, or status of the topic within the field. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Before you delete the MRB constant article, you might want to read

Before you delete the MRB constant article, you might want to read my reply in the MRB constant talk page. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

see Proposed rewrite with more use of references and less reliance on name in talk. Will something like that be better?Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've got the proposed rewrite about as complete that I can get it. If you would take a fresh look at it for me, I could use some help with it.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also requested a change to a couple of OEIS sequences that might add a little notoriety to the MRB constant. I'll add those if they come through.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

As a result of this AE request which was filed against you, and in accordance with the discretionary sanctions on gun control, you are hereby banned from making any edit related to the subject of gun control and from discussing gun control anywhere on Wikipedia. This topic ban is in place indefinitely, but you may request reconsideration after not less than six months of constructive contributions to other topic areas. You may also appeal this sanction in accordance with the procedure described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:73 (number) RfC

Sorry to be a pain but it's glaringly obvious that without breaking the Talk:73 (number) RfC into separate "survey" and "discussion" sections, it's going to be impossible for anyone to determine the outcome of the RfC. Your opinion seems clear but it would be inappropriate for anyone else to formalise your desired outcome in the "survey" section so could you please do so when you have some time. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

L.A. event on Tuesday, January 20

Wik-Ed Women editing session (1/20, 6-10pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Please join us at an event this coming Tuesday: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on January 20 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Mathematics vs mathematical physics

Hello, Arthur! I see that you are a mathematician! How do you see the difference between mathematics and mathematical physics? Is there really a significant difference?--85.121.32.27 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The parallel between the English and American civil wars

I read your comment at WP:AT

I would have thought that it would be grammatically incorrect, as would using the term Civil War to refer to either the American Civil War or the English Civil War. (A few months ago, I attended a presentation entitled "My civil war was worse than your civil war" (note the links), at the Huntington Library.

and though you might find this book short book (50 pages) interesting. The view on the last few pages are of their time (105 years out of date and obnoxious):

• Venables, Robert; Firth, C. H. (1900) [1910]. The parallel between the English and American civil wars. The Rede lecture delivered in the Senate House, Cambridge, on 14 June 1910. Cambridge, University Press.

-- PBS (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Chinese-speaking editor

I need to find a Chinese-speaking editor to verify whether the sources for "Aruba" (or "Aluba") paragraph in List of school pranks are WP:RS reliable sources, and that the supply a source for the name I have little objection to the section being called "Happy corner", as there seem to be reliable English-language sources from Hong Kong. They were added by an editor who shows limited command of English.

I should know where to ask, but I don't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:User zh-N gets you native Chinese speakers. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaelogy

Hey, I just wrote a mini-essay on what's wrong with the current Pseudoarchaeology page. I don't think it's very fair of you to completely bypass the Talk page because you have more stripes on your profile. Multiple people have called out bias and arbitrary accusations on the talk page. The least you can do is respond to why you have a picture of someone who believes in Ancient Aliens next to a writer who sticks to real world evidence. What good is an open source encyclopedia if objections by non-admins are ignored? Address my issues on the TALK page, please. I won't drag out a long debate, but you can do better than "Nope, he's a pseudoarcheologist." Thanks.68.105.53.244 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Under the guidelines, the question of whether he is a pseudoarchaeologist is left up to the real archaeologists. We are not supposed to judge by reading the material ourselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IP: 99.112.213.139

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

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

Taxation As Coercion

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

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

Shirley Ardell Mason

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

Arbitration enforcement discussion

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

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

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

Chelsea Manning in List Of Wikipedia Controversies

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

FYI

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

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

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

World Renowned Publisher Not a Reliable Source ???

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

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

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

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

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

2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Give Up

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

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

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

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

I respect you enough to let you know ...

Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MI library ip

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

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

Consecutive edits

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

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

@Atsme:

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

— Wikipedia, WP:3RR

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob Barnett

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

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

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

TUSC token link & email

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

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

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

List

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

2010s

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

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

FGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideology

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

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

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

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

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

@Srich32977: Perhaps relevant - afaik atm re US economic outcomes (based on "policies and ideas"?) => at the end of Clinton's term in 2001: a substantial surplus - and no recession; at the end of Bush2's term in 2009: a substantial deficit - and a great recession - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arthur can I please have permission to post on your page here to debunk all of your points? Popish Plot (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, if you are talking about my views and Viriditas's views on politics and/or economics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubt:

You undid my edits because of recent years. Is that because the article is stub?
*aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 08:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The person you added to 2008 didn't meet the criteria for inclusion, namely WP:RY — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of your other edits seem to be in error; WP:YEARS suggests that all the years should be linked, and many of the people you've added aren't the ones you intended to add. I do have standards for inclusion in earlier year articles than covered by WP:RY, which are not universally accepted, but it's generally accepted that being a country's entry in Eurovision is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

For most of the other edits of yours I reverted, you'll have to identify the individual edits. In year articles, I often look for recent changes to see which do not meet the standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Codes?

Can you help me with some codes? (only if you are not busy)

• aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I don't have much time, I'm not sure what you mean by "codes", and, if you're using Visual Editor, I can't help you much. But, if you have specific questions, I may be able to answer them. (As an aside, the <nobr> tag and the asterisk should not be in your signature. Signatures are supposed to be inline, or at least at the proper indentation level. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Will manage sign after some minutes: codes: they are there in my userpage about 8 categories of my userbox: when those collapsible are clicked for [show] they mess up the page. So can you help adding a scroll bar so that it won't fall out of the picture? thanks *aGastya ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Computer section of 0 (zero), the paragraph I added may have a little more information than needed. But, most of what I wrote is about 0(zero). Arthur has agreed of what I said, albeit, he said "only fiber optics". If that is the case, what is the light behind your Network Cable (RJ45) that is connected to your computer doing? Where does that light come from when there is no fiber optics?

Be that as it may, the fact that computers talk to each other by 0s and 1s is a fact that no network administrator could deny. Moreover, the fact that 0 represents off and 1 represents on is also a fact. However, there is no mention of that in the Computer Section of Zero.

By the way, I was the one that added the Islamic Source from Will Duran. After a long debate (perhaps due to prejudice), it was added. But, now we are talking logic not religion.

Yohannesb (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of your "facts" aren't. There is still no source, and little relevance to this article. You might try binary, or some related article, if you can find this stuff written down by someone with a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin you wrote <<Most of your "facts" aren't.>>. You cannot just reject a whole idea with a whole sale of condemnation. You must support your rejection with logic. May be, here (at the EPA), we have been wrong all these years all along. May be all the Network administrators of the world have been wrong all along. But you have to proof us wrong. Other wise, we will continue to use binary (0s and 1s) for our computer communications.

Please put back the information I wrote.

By the way, I did add that information in the binary section of computers. Yohannesb (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Yohannesb, you added it to a new "computers" section of binary, and it was promptly removed. The removal didn't give a clear reason, but among the acceptable reasons are:

1. Inappropriate on a disambiguation page. (Probably what Bkonrad intended to say.)
2. No source given.
3. Incorrect information

   Actually, not as important in Wikipedia as the other two, but there are few sentences which are entirely correct, and most have no trace of correctness. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arthur Rubin, You said << there are few sentences which are entirely correct >> Can you please add the few sentences that are entirely correct? Yohannesb (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Circumnavigation

Man circumnavigate the planet Earth/circumnavigate the Earth and mean circumnavigation of the entire planet Earth/circumnavigation of the Earth. Period Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

Up-arrow Notation

I think that Up-arrow Notation should NOT be merged with Hyperoperation

REASONS : Because Up-arrow Notation is just a way of showing hyperoperation. It's not directly related to HO.

And you could just create a new section in the HO page representing UAN

So for those reasons I will edit UAN and propose this talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googol 8 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

you're very mean and wicked

If you want to delete a few more of my recent edits, feel free to do it. I hane contributed (sometimes just one sentence, sometimes a little more) to Herb Jeffries, Fontella Bass, Clyde Stacy, Johnny Mann, Rosetta Hightower, The Association, Rod McKuen, Eufaula,Oklahoma, Jackie Lomax, The Spaniels, Bill Coday, Inez Andrews, Margie Alexander, Paul Craft, Tom Tall, Chris Rainbow, Priscilla Mitchell, The Orlons, The Standells, Rex Garvin, and many more. You shouldn't be satisfied with reverting just a few of my edits. I also wrote articles on Betty Cody and Larry Ramos. You can delete them, too. All the acts were born many decades ago just like me and I am too old and too tired to argue with you. You have given me to understand that I am not needed here anymore. And I don't care if you revert all my edits. Not any more. I will pass anyway just like the above did, so do as you want. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

@Radosław Wiśniewski: You're very foolish. Perhaps you would be better off editing a Wikipedia in your native language. But I haven't been following you. Twice, when reverting a banned IP, your edit was adjacent to his/her edit, and it was either grammatically incorrect or contradicted our style guide (WP:MOS). When I see a serious grammatical error made by any editor, I check to see whether he/she has made others. On at most two of the articles, did I revert anything which I did not specifically consider incorrect. I don't remember exactly which ones, but I can probably pull them off my contribution list. You'll probably notice that twice, I reverted only one of your two consecutive edits.

I'm not convinced that your additions of musical styles, either by category, or by infobox, is correct. I only reverted one of those, because it was too much work to separate your grammatical errors from questionable categories, and I did not want to take credit for the category, because I'm not sure it's correct. If you were to stop making grammatical errors on the "current events" entries, I probably wouldn't even see the rest of your edits to consider reverting them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you could be a benefit to Wikipedia, but, if you do not improve your grammar or follow Wikipedia guidelines, you probably are not a benefit to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Rubin -- You say, "You're very foolish." Is it really necessary for you to resort to name-calling to make your point? This editor is obviously frustrated that all his hard work has just been erased. I think you can make your point without resorting to insults. Please review WP:CIV. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rollback of IP

I don't think the IP's edit called for rollback here. I just thought I would point that out. Dustin (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: The IP is a banned (well, blocked, under various IPs, for over 3 years, now) editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I just brought it up because I thought it could be legitimate (at least, if done by a non-banned user).`Dustin (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Check this IP

• 99.112.215.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Babita arora 06:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  Someone else caught him/her/it (if a bot). Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

LA edit-a-thons on March 18 (tomorrow!) and 28

Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Wikipedia (3/28)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Wikipedia community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending! First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Wikipedia. Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

1 year block of 108.73.115.144

See also: Special:Contributions/108.73.115.144

I would like to please review the consensus on this block. Can you please direct me to the sock puppet investigation request, check user, or other discussion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion about that particular IP. However, it is obviously the same person noted in User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. See User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP for some history and pointers to discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know you could do that. I would like to learn more about the process behind this block. Do you have checkuser authority? How is it obviously the same person? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. Same type of edits, same type of edit summary, often reverting reversion of his edits under different IPs (even back in 2010 and 2011, when the edits were only reverted when separately considered inappropriate). Per WP:BEANS, I'm not going to go into details on-Wiki. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which of the edits was vandalism or even controversial? How are the edits the same types of edits? How would you characterize the type of edit? What are the distinguishing common characteristics of the edit summaries you feel demonstrate this user is the same as some other user? The IP you blocked today Special:Contributions/108.73.115.144, and blocked account creation, was not blocked prior to today, it is not a return of a previously blocked IP. Grand Rapids is the 2nd largest state in Michigan. Is it your understanding that you have a consensus to block on sight all anonymous IPs from south-western Michigan who edit in the area of climate change or the Koch brothers? This is an area of the encyclopedia that desperately needs help. I believe I deserve a opportunity to welcome a new anonymous user and encourage registration. Hugh (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I decline to describe characteristics on-Wiki, per WP:BEANS, but most of the IPs' edits are nominally gnomish, although often misguided. Only in climate change contexts does the IP ever add something substantive, whether or not misguided. The same editor (or, possibly, a clique or shared computer at a Kalmazoo school) has been making the same sort of edits for over 5 years. He/she no longer makes some of the types of inappropriate edits he/she made in 2010, but the differences seem insubstantial. If you issue a welcome template, please modify it to note that he/she is only welcome if he/she follows the policies and guidelines, and if he/she requests and is granted an unblock. This can probably be done politely, but it would require someone who hasn't been dealing with him for the past few years to do so. If you prepare such a template, I'll probably use it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If an edit filter could be constructed that would detect this editor, it wouldn't be necessary to block for long periods of time, but collateral damage is small. For almost all of the IPs, there are only one or two edits not associated with this editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

When I saw a new anonymous edit contribute in the area I was editing, I welcomed w/ an encouragement to register. Hugh (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought everything on WP was through consensus. I am concerned that you seem unwilling to elaborate further on your specific justification for this block. Is it some kind of secret admin thing? In my experience new editors are often "gnomish" or "misguided." Do I understand from your reply that you DO consider yourself deputized to block, and block registrations, from all IPs in SW Michigan who edit in the area of climate change? May I say that after getting to know you somewhat in our collaboration of the last few weeks that I have little confidence in your ability to single-handedly identify socks and block without process. An active program of blocking IPs and blocking registrations might be contributing to the sorry state of our articles in this area. We need help. Will you help broaden participation in the encyclopedia? Hugh (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this IP from Grand Rapids or SW Michigan? Hugh (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not verifying where the IP is from; he was blocked (there, for a short time) while on vacation in Florida, recently. i'm verifying that he is making the same edits (actually, usually some of the same edits, not just the same type of edits). If you happen to catch him when he's on, you can ask him why he doesn't appeal his block. I'm not on here as much as I was like, but Vsmith also blocks on sight and reverts many of the edits. I haven't kept track of the other admins who do the same. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"If you happen to catch him when he's on, you can ask him..." I did try to reach out to this user with Twinkle. How can I reach out now that his IP is blocked? I believe I am within my rights to ask how you are so sure you know who you are blocking. Hugh (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed all 13 edits this editor got in today before you block the IP and blocked registrations. I find nothing justifying a 1 year block. I find nothing justifying anything beyond a twinkle. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just today. I haven't been keeping careful records, but there was a 3-month block established in 2012 or so (by consensus at ANI), and he hasn't been off more than a month, since then. You're welcome to revisit the consensus, but the edits haven't changed significantly, so it seems unlikely the consensus would/ Possibly, the block length could have been capped at 3 months, rather than escalating, as blocks normally do, but early history frequently shows reuse by the same person with no edits by anyone else on the IP.

I don't think you have the right to ask for my criteria for identifying him. It's quite possible he could change the edit summaries without changing the actual edits; since I use the edit summaries to identify him, I'm not going to reveal how I recognize him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS When a new editor contributes to a page I am editing, I believe I have a right to attempt to engage the new editor, and we should WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE, even if YOU think they are "gnomish" or "misguided." Do I take it from your answer that you believe your reasons for the block ARE a secret? Are you claiming you developed consensus on this block with another editor? Was it on or off wiki? This is the second time in as many months that you blocked an IP that contributed to a page I was working on. How do I know you will not consider me "gnomish" or "misguided" next? Hugh (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading WP:BEANS as empowering you to identify socks and block without consensus and without process and without justification? Hugh (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, clearly we should collect the links to the various threads when this comes up and catalogue them on Arthur\IPList or somewhere. @HughD, if you can get this IP to discuss in a meaningful way, more power to ya. However, many have tried and failed. For this particular IP, I can't think of much we could say in violation of BEANS, as the IP already knows the tricks. I'll do/say more on this later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: "Only in climate change contexts does the IP ever add something substantive, whether or not misguided." Interesting. How odd! May I ask, I hope answering will not be giving away too too much of your secret sauce for identifying your ancient nemesis, given contributing on climate change is a characteristic, did you happen to notice what SIDE of climate change your white whale tends toward? Any additional pattern there? Hugh (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Arthur, I apologize for my deficit of good faith here. Hugh (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, if you are implying that Arthur is engaged in POV WP:BATTLE, then you should perhaps review WP:ARBCC#Principles and try to AGF. My own assessment of the IP's climate edits are that the IP is supportive of the IPCC and scientific opinion on climate change, and probably consistent with this graph also

File:Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change - by Tobis and Ban.jpg

To give you an idea of my personal view of the subject, I'm the ed who uploaded that graph. POV is not the issue here. The issue is that this community functions on trust. As it says in our WP:Sock puppetry policy, "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust.". When dealing with socks, we're authorized to revert on site, and socking to get around a block restarts the clock on the original block. You can pound on Arthur all you want, but if you do so, you should also pound on myself (a lowly regular editor) as well as various admins besides Arthur, Vsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). But before you do so, it would help if you studied the links at the bottom of User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP and made some nuanced references to the prior discussions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Nice graph! Thank you for your comments. Thank you for divulging that a particular side of a particular issue is one of the characteristics used to block IPs without consensus. I had an idea that might be the case. Above Arthur said there was no documentation on the process of development of consensus on this specific block of this IP; are you saying different? A serious breach, so serious the ends justify the means, process doesn't matter? So serious that if a few genuine new editors are collateral, so be it? SPI is for lowly editors, admins who are Defenders of the Faith have a fast track? I understand there are vandals. I see no vandalism in this block. This is not the return of an expired blocked IP. I am uncomfortable with any lone individual socking & blocking based on undisclosed criteria and gut feel, and also uncomfortable with our communities' apparent choice of cop/judge/jury in this subject area. Hugh (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Ok, read some of your links, thanks, including a relatively long response by the nemesis. I am WP:COMPETENT, and I share the concerns of some regarding WP:COMPETENT-cy of the author of that response, but, after editing in this little corner of WP for a couple of months now, I think I know of what he speaks when he talks of an "AR goon squad." I would like to correct my earlier snark, this story is not Moby Dick it is Frankenstein. Trying to edit an article on that watchlist can make anybody crazy. If this is a problem that needs solving, who is the best person to work on it, can I ask that without questions on my GF? Hugh (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Thank you for sharing that you consider the scope of your mandate to range beyond Michigan. So are you some kind of one man sock puppet investigator/judge/jury? A sort of FISA court for climate change edits? If so I would like to review the consensus behind this deputization. Hugh (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh asked, "If this is a problem that needs solving, who is the best person to work on it?" You are, Hugh! Just go to your user space and create a list article. Browse through the contribs on Arthur's IP list page and add the articles that you repeatedly see to your userspace list. Then every editing session, refresh "recent changes" for your list every 20 min or so. Eventually, you will see a new IP address with the recognizable editing pattern making changes as you watch. Then since you're online at the same time, You can show us how it's done, and I will congratulate you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on ed or admin behavior regarding climate change edits/discussion fall under discretionary sanctions. At least, I think that's how it works. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD:

1. You were evidently under the impression that blocks can take place only when there has been a discussion at some page (such as a sockpuppet investigation). That is not so: the overwhelming majority of blocks take place at discretion of individual administrators, without such a discussion. You are, of course, free to propose a policy change, taking the decision to block out of administrators' hands, and requiring consensus at a discussion for every block. However, I am convinced that such a change would make Wikipedia completely unworkable. Even under the present system, the sockpuppet investigation queue is permanently backlogged; as I write, there are 68 SPIs waiting to be dealt with, including 1 dating from January and 15 from February. Frequently, the SPI queue is far worse than that, at times running to over 100 cases waiting to be dealt with. Likewise, discussions in other places, such as the administrators' noticeboards, are often very long and slow, and many cases are never actually closed, as they just get archived without being dealt with; if instead of covering only a tiny minority of blocks such discussions were required to be held for 100% of blocks, the whole system would become unmanageable.
2. Ideally, reasons for decisions should be made public, so that the decisions can be scrutinised and reviewed by any editor, but it is a most unfortunate fact of life that making public one's reasons for knowing that a particular account or IP address has been used to evade blocks very often serves the purpose of telling the block-evading editor how to evade blocks in future without being detected so easily, and for that reason it is common practice to decline to give full details. Sometimes there are signs which are really obvious give-aways if you notice them, but block-evading editors don't notice them, so they keep on making the same mistakes and giving themselves away; telling them what those signs are would not be helpful. Above, I used the words "most unfortunate", and I was 100% sincere in doing so: I fully agree with what you evidently believe, that ideally evidence should be made public, but unfortunately when there are conflicting requirements, something has to give way, and in the case of sockpuppetry and block-evasion, quite often to decline to publicly describe the evidence is the lesser evil. Again, you are free to propose a policy change to make full disclosure mandatory, but I think such a proposal would stand very little chance of succeeding, and would do more harm than good if it did succeed.
3. I have independently reviewed the IP address's history, and compared it with the history of other IP addresses involved, and I can confirm that in my view it is clear way beyond all reasonable doubt that the IP address in question has been used exclusively by a very disruptive long-term multiple block-evading editor, and that the block is fully justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor fact detail that I belatedly realized.... the address in question was encompassed by a range block James imposed in 2012. Range blocking worked very well at prevention while we were doing it that way, and I never did hear of any collateral damage (though I'm uncertain how we would). Should we go back to that, James? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time in engaging with me on this. I appreciate it. Hugh (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"the overwhelming majority of blocks take place at discretion of individual administrators, without such a discussion" I did not know that, thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"a very disruptive long-term multiple block-evading editor" Ok, thanks. NEG suggested I look at WP:LTA and I did but I learned that this person has never been formally banned. I don't understand why not. Are bans also done without formal process? Wouldn't a ban give you guys instructions, like "block similar on sight" that you could cite in the edit summary of a block? Thanks again for your patience. Hugh (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have learned not to expect a discussion on every block, thanks. How about bans? Can an editor be banned without formal process? From the blocks on acct creation, do I take it this nemesis is effectively banned? Thanks again for your patience. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not "banned", rather "blocked". As new block evasion happens faster than existing blocks expire, the IP's own acts keeps a constant supply of blocks still open. Many of us have explained to the IP that they could just wait for all the blocks to expire to be restored to good graces, but the IP chooses to maintain their current blocked status through acts of block evasion. We've also explained about the more active appeal process and petitioning to shorten the timeframe. Apparently, the IP likes it this way. I agree its a sad waste of life energy (including yours, now). If you want to engage with the IP, use the userspace list and "recent changes" I've already described to watch for them, so you can chat them up in real time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The block that started this thread included a block on account creation from that particular IP. Is that an apporach normally associated with a block due to block evasion from a banned user? Is this nemesis banned officially or un? Would he be permitted to create an account? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That probably was a mistake on my part. I'm willing to authorize an adminbot to allow account creation on all the IPs I've blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For others reading in future IP is blocked, not 'banned' NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Ok, a mistake. Do I understand you are saying a similar mistake of blocking account creation when maybe you should not have, was made on many IPs? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's possible. I think the default got reset to "block account creation". I have to take off now. Perhaps I'll check tomorrow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's also irrelevant, at least for this particular IP. After all, they find it simple to get a new IP address for purpose of block evasion, so they could just as easily use a new IP to register and then either wait out the blocks or appeal for a shortened block period. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Rather pointless with the person in question. When an ip is blocked, he often just logs off and back on with a different ip within the hour to continue his rapid fire trivial edits. Why would he want a username when it's so easy to game the system by ip hopping. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Agreed the behavior pattern does not indicate a burning desire to register. History also suggests he's not going away. Suppose he did find a new IP that is not blocked for account creation and registered, after a few edits, as soon as you guys decided it was him, the longest block on any of the anonymous IPs would be in effect? Hugh (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm an editor, not an admin, but my answer is -Yes unless the editor in question decides to join the collaborative community and persuade us that WP:NOTHERE no longer applies. In addition, if the editor registers and tries to edit without dealing with the blocks that is block evasion and per WP:EVADE admins may restart and/or lengthen the clock on those blocks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain this to me. OK, so there's no fresh start in registering & behaving, you're obligated to 'fess up and deal with the blocks. Hugh (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If the IP registered and "behaved", as you put it, no one would know of the connection to the IP accounts unless the editor announced it. Technically, that would be block evasion, but who cares? If they were to "behave" then the purpose of sanctions ("prevention, not punishment") would be achieved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical behave=prevention scenario seems unavailable to this person because some admins say they have some secret sauce for identification. For example, the block that started this thread had 13 edits in about an hour, no edits to justify a block, best I can tell, he behave and got blocked. Hugh (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The "secret sauce" would never associate a registered user making substantive article edits or participating in article improvement discussions in a meaningful way with the IP, so that option is indeed available 24/7. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Most editors contributions include a mix of more and less substantive edits. The 13 edits in about 1 hour before the block under discussion here included both, and none I would consider vandalism. The block was for evasion, not the edits. Could you please take a scan at the edits, and see if you agree? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but I assessed the contribs so I knew what I was talking about before I first spoke up. Yes, it's him, and yes, the block was for evasion. That said, these contribs still contain edit summary abuse and external link spam, like this dandy example, which is not unlike the Niagra Falls of this crap back in 2010/2011. When its one or two, its not even noticeable. When there are scores appearing in one's watchlist, as there used to be for me, that's enormous time vetting and cleaning instead of doing the enjoyable work, and the watchlist function is essentially disabled with respect to contribs from anyone else due to the clutter. You're fixated on a discrete list of 13 or so contribs - piffle in the grand wind they are. Its the daily onslaught and accumulation of 1000s of spammed external links over years that have been the original underlying problem. Of course you want to control the agenda with a fixation on this set of 13, fine that gives you something to argue about, I understand. But this set of 13 edits does not exist in a vacuum and you've exhausted by patience in this venue. Unless I feel compelled to correct something else, I'm done replying to you in this venue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Thanks to you I think I have a vague inkling of how frustrating this situation is, and also I recognize how un-fun getting me up to speed is. You and a couple few admins are ahead of me on this debacle so I really appreciate your time with my silly questions. I know it's more than 13 edits. I did not mean to imply you had NOT looked at the 13, sorry. My only point in focusing on the 13 is that, the scenario you suggested earlier, register and behave, seems to me is not practically available to this person, because no matter how substantive the edits, there's the infallible secret id mechanism which shall not be described. Aware of trying your patience, the ext link spam you singled out, annoying in isolation, and aggravating as all hell when one of hundreds, if a newbie might be generously interpreted as a very inept attempt to say, I think this article should see also to the Kochs. Thanks again for your time above & beyond all expectation. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Arthur. I hope all is well with you & yours. I checked the block logs and, as far back as I looked, many years, for hundreds of IPs, account creation was blocked as well as editing. Hugh (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As you say, the sock readily found "hundreds" of IPs from which nothing was blocked, neither editing nor account creation, so no harm done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of IPs are blocked from anyone creating accounts, right? Hugh (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vast majority have expired, e.g., User:Arthur Rubin/IP list NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand this better, with generous help, this struggle is a heartbreaking black hole of human capital. In this ongoing tragedy I consider the nemesis, the admins who have been blocking for going on a decade, and the editors who have tried to establish communication. What a waste. The herculean IP list may be the largest contribution to any single WP page by its editor and that is extremely sad. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

When an obsessed(?) individual tries to exploit a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (its rather naive openness) for years ... yeah, it is a waste. I suppose we could apply a couple of rather wide rangeblocks as I seldom see any use of the ip addresses by others. But I suspect the individual would shift to a different available ip range ... obsessive behavior knows few bounds. Any reasonable suggestions for finding a workable solution are welcome. Vsmith (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(A) We tried range blocks, and there was a LARGE decrease in activity. There was still some, but not nearly as much. I think we should try again and see what results.

(B) Consistent with Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, the other thing to do is make it boring by developing the WP:OneFellSwoop feature as a an admin/beaucrat tool. The idea is to globally revert a sock's daily edits with a single action.

(C) The IP would have to decide if it was worth the bother to drive to Ferris State College to get around a range block that happens to impact Kalamazoo, knowing that whatever they do, some admin has their finger on the WP:OneFellSwoop button.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It exists. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"obsessive behavior knows few bounds." This much is clear. Hugh (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't we all... Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a simulated reality solution? A flagged OCD IP's edits would only be visible to the IP or a range of IPs. Perhaps with a bit of harassment from ClueBot. Let 'em edit all they want to. Jim1138 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

His own elusive cloud WP, that is a great idea. Everyone would want their own. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"OCD" I don't think we are qualified to remotely diagnose based on WP edit histories. WP:IPHUMAN Don't knock OCD. OCD is the one thing you can count on everyone having in common that you meet on a WP talk page. All we are talking bout here is variations in degree. OCD built this encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

108.195.138.239

Another iteration, where is the best place to report it? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, Vsmith, Capitalismojo I'd like to try establishing communications with this person. I have reviewed the history and recognize it is probably futile and may well get me stalked and seriously degrade my WP experience. Please message me and see if I am online and give me a chance even if it means holding off on blocking for a while. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: I don't see why you can't communicate with him while he's blocked? Could you explain? Alternatively, if you are willing to commit to reverting all of his edits, even those few which make sense, I might be willing to forgo blocking him while he's communicating with you, and not a minute thereafter. 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I have tried posting on their talk page after a block twice now and that hasn't worked. We suspect he is bouncing between public workstations and only sitting at any one for an hour or so at most, I'd like to ping him during that window if an opportunity arises. It may be he is not jotting down his IP and checking back with the IP talk page later. Yes, I am not asking you not to block, just to wait a bit so we can try something. I plan to present myself as someone whose edit history is demonstrably not part of any goon squad. Maybe in some weird way our history of crossing swords can help us here. Maybe I'm as crazy as him. Ask me again to help you with the reverts going forward after I am rebuffed, you are carrying the weight of this. Hugh (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh plans to present himself "as someone whose edit history is demonstrably not part of any goon squad", unlike the rest of us, although Hugh obviously has a chronic problem with subsurface failure to assume good faith towards the rest of us.

Arthur, I think I'm opposed to Hugh's proposal for the simple reason that he can accomplish his goal (being alerted when both he and the IP are online) without the rest of us taking braincells or incurring extra edits before the IP gets blocked. Hugh can accomplish that goal by the simple user-page list I have already described, and when Hugh is online, he can open that list in a new tab, click "related changes", and then every few minutes refresh that tab. Relying on this technique increases the frequency when the stars are aligned, because it means only two people are online at the same time (Hugh and the IP). It also means the rest of us are not using braincells or dealing with the increased volume of triviality, banality (in some edit summaries), or external link spam not folded meaningfully into existing article text.

The way Hugh seems to propose requires THREE parties to be online at the same time (Hugh, the IP, plus one of us others). It puts the onus on us others to observe, understand, ping Hugh, and watch yet more edits pour in while Hugh tilts at his windmills tries to reason with the IP.

I anticipate rebuttal from Hugh saying that he would not have to be online.... we could leave him a message, and he might find it the next day, but if the IP is not blocked, then he will have time to talk to the IP the next day. If that's what Hugh is thinking (apologies if you're not) then we get unrestricted edits until the IP is kicked out of their library or passes out, and when Hugh goes looking the next day, the IP is already at a different IP.

In sum, whether Hugh sees our ping the next day or when all three of us are online, there is less window of opportunity for Hugh to connect than if Hugh carries the minor burden of creating the user page list so Hugh can do his own monitoring, and yet the IP can't exploit an open tap to pour in their link spam. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh for g*d's sake I am not requiring anybody to do anything. I am only asking for a chance to try something. Only hold off on the block for as long as you're comfortable, I don't care if it is day or an hour, your call. Take a breath please. What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over? WP:IPHUMAN. Hugh (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"open tap" I just looked back over some recent blocks. Sometimes the block stops them cold. But often, he stops, and we block later, maybe a half hour or hour or several hours later. So what we are doing now is not perfect at closing that tap anyway. Wait for one of the latter, please. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think your method

• hold off on block and we ping you so you can try to reason with him

is superior to the method you already have available which is

• create your own user-page index to articles the IP frequently targets and use the "related changes" page to proactively watch instead of waiting for one of us to ping?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Be calm. No one is asking you to do anything. Arthur is a big boy. Hugh (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not so, Hugh. You're asking me to sort through a lot more crap in my watchlist for awhile. What is the logical reason by which you think your proposed method is better? Second explicit request for explanation. I pride myself on having an open mind to logic-based reasoning. Tell us why your way could be better than you doing your own independent montioring, and if it makes sense to me I'll happily agree to tolerate a flooded watchlist for awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

I wonder if you might be over-reacting to my "goon squad" quip which if you don't know is a quote from our friend I was hoping Arthur might recognize, and, I dunno, maybe even chuckle at. I did not expect you or anyone else to think I was saying they were part of a squad. If you or Arthur were offended, I apologize. Or are you concerned I am conspiring with our friend to corrupt the encyclopedia? May I remind you in my opinion my offer to try to intercede exposes myself to the not insignificant peril of picking up a thoroughly annoying stalker. If it's too much trouble, nobody do anything because i asked. Nobody do anything to compromise the encyclopedia. OK? Hugh (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

- edit conflict -

That's a non issue, and I argue my points at face value. You will understand me better if your read what I right at face value, too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Arthur Rubin,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

michigan kid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.195.138.212
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/108.73.112.249
--70.190.111.213 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Noemí Gerstein

Hi, I saw the Proposed deletion of Noemí Gerstein template on my talkpage and I'm wondering what your thoughts were on that? Just noticed Ymblanter's note, duh, April Fool's. Anyway, big thank you to Ymblanter for removing the proposed deletion template from the article page as NG was an obviously notable artist. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 9/11 conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

42 (number)

Hey Arthur, personally I'm fine without this piece of content[4], but yesterday there was a User, Kmergl, that was willing to repeatedly revert over it. An IP tried to restore it without the source[5] as it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list (again today and yesterday) and how I got involved. I was named at WP:AN3[6] over reverting unsourced content yesterday and I just didn't feel like being combative and decided to add the source that the User left on my Talk page[7]. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Chrisdecorte

Hello, Arthur. I wanted to let you know that I've made a reference to you, or more specifically some correspondence of yours with Chrisdecorte, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chrisdecorte. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What is Islam?

Mr. Rubin. I am a Muslim. With all the hype over "Islamic terrorists," no one openly says what a Muslim is. The founder of the Ahmadis is an apostate Muslim. He is the center of their religion. To believe that Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet, is a core tenet of Islamic belief. It is why we revere our book, the Quran. If there is revelation after Prophet Muhammad, then the Quran is just another book. Our relationship to the Quran and to Prophet Muhammad are central tenets of the Muslim faith. You can censor me, but you cannot escape the truth. Ahmadi are mistreated in Muslim majority countries and I am the first to acknowledge it and say it should not happen, but this goes back to censorship. Why do Muslims hate Ahmadis? They lie on us and say they are us when in fact, we see their messiah as a heretic. And they go a step further in their untruth as they try to make our difference one of tolerance. True Islam has a long history of tolerance. For centuries we were protecting Jews from Christian persecution. I don't have the best manners and I am not here to write a term paper. Please ask real Muslims what we believe. If you say, "Muslims do not believe in finality and closure of Prophethood with the end of Prophet Muhammad as a core Islamic belief, that is a falsehood you are publishing. For Christians Jesus is the end of special men sent by God and this is why they cherish their book and none comes after it. The same for us, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad. A Christian must believe in the divinity of Jesus. A Muslim must believe that Prophet Muhammad is the Final Prophet. We openly say he is not divine, but faith in him is that none comes after him. The Ahmadis clearly deny basic concepts in Islam. Here's another quick one: I used to own an Ahmadi Quran. They believe EVERYONE goes to heaven. A basic tenet of Islam is that there is a judgement and that some will be put in the fire forever. Some will be put in for varying temporary amounts of time, but in Islam, we believe in hell and a place of eternal punishment for disbelievers. It is not our differences with the Ahmadis that causes the persecution and strife, it is their dishonesty. If you talk to me and say you love everyone and everyone goes to heaven and you respect everyone, and then you lie on me, this causes confusion (in Islam: fitna). Please be a source of peace in the world. Publishing lies about my faith because you like the other guy's faith is no road to true peace. Put me on your watch list. I can't stand fake Muslims. The Nation of Islam is another such group. I can say ISIS may be Muslims, but they are Muslim criminals and that makes their religion irrelevant. I believe in America's power and goodness and that means renegade butchers on the other side of the world are certain to die at the hands of US weapons and the side of good. Mr. Rubin sorry for being long. I am not a Muslim scholar, but I like to think I know basic Islam. Please do not be of those who do not tell the truth about Muslims and what we believe.

peace and blessings be upon the messenger of Allah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregAbdul (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregAbdul: There is a problem here; Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims, while "traditional" Muslims do not consider Ahmadis Muslims. Similarly with Mormons and Christians, Messianic Jews and Jews. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of religious truth. You are welcome to expound on the tenets of Islam, provided that you use reliable, secondary, sources (not the Quran, itself), and make clear the context. There are any number of respected Islamic scholars (I mean, scholars of Islam, whether or not Muslims, themselves) who have contradictory views as to whether ISIL/ISIS have a legitimate view of Islam. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To GregAbdul: In trying to compare Christianity to Islam, you have misunderstood Christianity. There is no general agreement among Christians on what the central belief(s) of Christianity are. However, I will try to state the most common view here: Jesus was not merely a prophet. He was the son of God and/or one of three aspects of God (the others being the Father/Creator and the Holy Spirit). Jesus allowed himself to be sacrificed to pay for the sins of Mankind so that anyone who truly repented of his sins and accepted that sacrifice could be saved and live in Heaven after death. Thus Jesus embodies the love that God has for Man. The Bible was not written by Jesus nor by God the Father. It was written by Men (and so is arguably imperfect, although some say it is perfect) perhaps inspired or guided by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not primarily a list of commandments, rather it is a kind of biography of God the Father (in the old testament) and Jesus (in the new testament). There have been divine revelations subsequent to those reported in the Bible, including visions of the Virgin Mary (Jesus's mother) and other deceased saints or angels. The Catholic church accepts certain statements by the Pope as divinely inspired.

So finality of the Biblical revelations is not part of Christianity. Also, Christians usually leave the punishment of sins to God instead of presuming to inflict it on sinners during their life. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for responding to my long post. I only ask you to be fair. There is such a thing as objective definition. There is a universally understood definition of what it means to be a Muslim. We have articles of faith and dogma. There are people in the world, who have no medical training, who say they are doctors. I do not mean to insult Ahmadis. I am only asking you post that, "they consider themselves Muslims, but reject central tenets of orthodox Islam." That is the truth. There is a basic universal understanding of what a Christian is. We can pretend these faiths do not have objective definitions, but that is not true and we all know it. Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you study a little, you know that Jehovah's Witnesses will come to your door and tell you they are Christians, even though they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. This is my point. Jehovah's Witnesses are for the most part, very nice people and for the most part, most Ahamdis are very nice people. But that does not change their attempts to make confusion about terms that are hundreds of years old with set understandings. My issue with Wikipedia is not the tenets of Islam. They are there. If I send you the tenets and give you a secondary source ask you state, you will simply resort to the idea of subjective definition. Muhammad is the most popular name in the world. We love our Prophet with all the strength God gives us. I need a source for this? You are reinforcing confusion. I am sorry for speaking without reference. The issue is interpretation. "khalid" in the Quran can mean forever. However a loose wrong interpretation of the Arabic the Ahamdis use mean hell is not a forever place and that is contrary, once again, to hundreds of years of Muslim scholarship. The Quran says Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet (33:40). Like I said, I used to own an Ahmadi Quran and they simply make a mockery of our scholarship and settled matters among Muslims. Then they turn to non Muslims and talk of how peaceful they are. Thank you for your response and I have vented to you and I only ask you see me as a person poorly making a legitimate point. In order for words to really have meaning, they must have real definitions. I don't say it with hate, but I ask you to see the objective fact in my words. Ahmadi are not Muslims. I love Bahai's because they use our books and love our Prophet, but they openly say, they are not us. I wish Ahmadis would rise to their level.GregAbdul (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for responding to my long post. I only ask you to be fair. There is such a thing as objective definition. There is a universally understood definition of what it means to be a Muslim. We have articles of faith and dogma. There are people in the world, who have no medical training, who say they are doctors. I do not mean to insult Ahmadis. I am only asking you post that, "they consider themselves Muslims, but reject central tenets of orthodox Islam." That is the truth. There is a basic universal understanding of what a Christian is. We can pretend these faiths do not have objective definitions, but that is not true and we all know it. Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you study a little, you know that Jehovah's Witnesses will come to your door and tell you they are Christians, even though they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. This is my point. Jehovah's Witnesses are for the most part, very nice people and for the most part, most Ahamdis are very nice people. But that does not change their attempts to make confusion about terms that are hundreds of years old with set understandings. My issue with Wikipedia is not the tenets of Islam. They are there. If I send you the tenets and give you a secondary source ask you state, you will simply resort to the idea of subjective definition. Muhammad is the most popular name in the world. We love our Prophet with all the strength God gives us. I need a source for this? You are reinforcing confusion. I am sorry for speaking without reference. The issue is interpretation. "khalid" in the Quran can mean forever. However a loose wrong interpretation of the Arabic the Ahamdis use mean hell is not a forever place and that is contrary, once again, to hundreds of years of Muslim scholarship. The Quran says Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet (33:40). Like I said, I used to own an Ahmadi Quran and they simply make a mockery of our scholarship and settled matters among Muslims. Then they turn to non Muslims and talk of how peaceful they are. Thank you for your response and I have vented to you and I only ask you see me as a person poorly making a legitimate point. In order for words to really have meaning, they must have real definitions. I don't say it with hate, but I ask you to see the objective fact in my words. Ahmadi are not Muslims. I love Bahai's because they use our books and love our Prophet, but they openly say, they are not us. I wish Ahmadis would rise to their level.GregAbdul (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

not tech savy. pass this on to mr. springs...no one truly considers a papal bull the equivalent of the Bible. The concpet you cite is that the Church generated the Bible so it's pronouncements today are just as sacred. Most of all no Protestant honors such a doctrine and most Catholics don't know it exists (I say as a former Catholic). The Bible, as interpreted through historical Christianity declares Jesus' divinity and this is the core of Christianity. Christmas and Easter...are God being born and dying and rising again. Some things you say are far more incorrect that my "unsupported statements" Christians don't believe in earthly punishment? The US is a Christian majority country with the largest prison population in the Western World. Religion is faith. No Christians says, "I believe in God as expressed in the Bible, but it has some errors in it." That is called a lack of faith. Mr. Spriggs we have dogmas and cannons. Please do not pretend that we don't. you have a field of expertise. What if some untrained half bake came up and said, there is no definition for something you have spent your life studying? And then scholars in an outside field tried to agree with the half-bake? Please be fair to us. There are Muslim universities and some of us spend our lives studying Islam. We treat it as a science (or a set of sciences). I am not asking you to hate anyone. I only ask you see that the Quran says none comes after Muhammad. The Ahmadis don't really follow the Quran, even as they publish it and say they do. I am not asking you to call them liars. I am asking you to acknowledge simple fact. in two seconds i got the Quran passage that denies their messiah. How can they be in a faith that declares the man they hold most sacred is a fraud? The Quran say the one they love who comes after Muhammad is false. Please do not participate in lies because the liars are nice people.GregAbdul (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To GregAbdul: I am an atheist, not a Christian. However, I went to Unitarian Universalist Sunday-school and attended their services for some time. Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Unitarian Universalists are in the mainstream of Christianity, but I still regard them as Christians. Whether Jesus was merely a man, a (part of) God, or both is a matter of long-standing dispute. I think the more important part of Christianity is what Jesus taught his followers: to love God and to love other people as much as you love yourself; to forgive those who harm you rather than seeking revenge; to give to those in need.

Not all Americans are Christians, and many compromise their Christianity in favor of other considerations. So the fact that the government punishes people does not prove that Christianity approves of that punishment. Protestants (especially Evangelicals) believe that God communicates with them directly (or through supernatural intermediaries) rather than through priests as the Catholics do. This constitutes a post-Biblical revelation. It is similar to certain revelations which ARE recorded in the Bible, such as what allegedly happened to Saint Paul on the road to Damascus.

Since religious ideas do not refer to anything in reality, it makes no sense to speak of any of them as "objective". There is no way to determine which interpretation of the Qu'ran is the "objectively correct" interpretation. The Qu'ran says that Allah is all merciful, and yet he authorizes, demands, and allegedly imposes (after death) horrific punishments on many people. Is this not a contradiction and hypocrisy? The Qu'ran contradicts the Bible on many important points. So one might reasonably argue that Allah is not Jehovah, but rather a different "god" altogether (or even the devil).

The words "Muslim", "Islam", "Muhammad", "Qu'ran" and "Allah" cannot be trademarked by anyone. So you have no right to forbid the Ahmadis calling themselves Muslim. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg Abdul,

I agree with J R Spriggs: "Since religious ideas do not refer to anything in reality, it makes no sense to speak of any of them as 'objective'." You write "I can say ISIS may be Muslims, but they are Muslim criminals and that makes their religion irrelevant" but I would put it to you that their religion is very relevant, after all, is it not the core of their very inspiration? You state that there is "a universally understood definition of what it means to be a Muslim"; this I truly doubt. That Daish claim to be Muslim has got to say something. Of course, we should not let the argument go beyond the Wikipedia it's posted on but ... who are you to deny their Muslimness? Jimp 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Grouping of digits

Arthur,

This issue of grouping of digits has been a well neglected and uncomprehended segment of MOSNUM for quite some time. You know, I'd been thinking that it was about time to rectify this. Yes, I did go bold on the bugger ... as you do (i.e. as one does ...). Thank you for the challenge but I think it's one you might like to consider. I'm saying it's very nice that we've got people to put things right and to keep things right. This is what I appreciate your doing. I've not so closely been keeping track of the specifics of what MOSNUM might have to say about how to write a number but I've not been unaware (if I might claim) of what consensus is and what the use out there happens to be, and I would argue that what is stated currently at MOSNUM is not only in conflict with regular WP practice but in conflict with common sense. I would hope that you'd see the point I'm making and support the well needed changes to MOSNUM in this respect, which I'll be putting up for discussion. What is really needed is a little clarity on this issue. Jimp 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jimp: I'm afraid I don't agree as to real-world usage when clarity is important, whether or not in keeping with standards. Thin spaces every 3 or 5 is the standard in mathematical articles or in tables (with the digits forced to all be the same width, whether or not mono-spaced as a whole), except in scientific notation, where it is often unspaced, although it's rare that measured quantities have more than 5 significant figures. Let's continue this on the appropriate talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimp — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, let's do that. Jimp 00:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I saw that you undid my edit to this page, saying that I had interpreted a study incorrectly. It seems that the study in question was this one. Is this correct, and if so, can you explain why this study, which concluded that "Acupuncture exhibits clinically and statistically significant control of IBS symptoms", should be cited to support the claim that there is no strong evidence of benefit of acupuncture for IBS? Everymorning talk 12:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Events

Hi Aurthur,

Thank you for your note. I'm an educator researching famous discoveries and events that have impacted our understanding of different regions of the world. Discoveries are significant events, and Wikipedia is full of them! When material discoveries occur that prove or disprove theories or that dramatically increase the scientific body of knowledge, they should be remembered and celebrated.

When Sue O'Connor discovered evidence of human remains in Jerimalai cave on 12/22/2006, it provided the first tangible evidence to substantiate the theory that mankind immigrated to Australia through South-east Asia. It was also the first of many important finds in the caves of that region that are well-documented on Wikipedia. That discovery was an event that changed our understanding of the history and origins of modern human life in Australia.

The mummy disovered in Taizhou, China on 3/1/2011 is no less significant - the 700-yr-old mummy was the best-preserved find from the Ming Dynasty in modern archaeology. The corpse gives an incredible glimpse into the lives of the ruling class, the fabrics they used, their mummifying technology, and the funeral rituals and customs they followed in a bygone era. The find was an event - especially to the road workers who stumbled upon the tomb by accident.

I believe that these are worthy of listing in Wikipedia because they are factual, historical events that have dramatically increased our body of scientific knowledge.

Thank you, Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanstaker (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot

Hi Arthur, I note from your LinkedIn profile that you have a background in aerospace, and there is a page that might benefit from your experience. The article about the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a problematic one, and is not helping the overall reputation of Wikipedia.

It seems that anytime a journalist is writing about an air disaster (911 WTC, MH370, MH17, Germanwings, etc.), they end up using that page for background information about a conspiracy by 'shadowy forces' to remotely 'take control' of aircraft, and fly them at will, leaving the flight crew helpless to do anything.

From what I can tell, there are a number of patents relating to this type of technology, but I have not seen any indication (e.g. in aviation trade journals) that anyone has ever tried to implement such technology in a commercial airliner. It would require extensive certification procedures, and any unusual equipment would be very obvious when installed in the avionics bay. Part of the conspiracy narrative is that it has been 'secretly' installed as a set of 'sub protocols' in existing equipment. However, there are many technologically literate pilots flying commercial aircraft, and it seems a little unlikely that these sub protocols would go undetected. The conspiracy also seems to focus on Boeing, but doesn't take into account that there are planes in commercial service from many other manufacturers e.g. Airbus, Embraer, McDonnell Douglas, Sukhoi, etc.

I have recently done some work on the page, so that each sentence has at least one citation, however, it's a stub, and this has been just an attempt make it coherent. I have deleted some earlier material that used raw patent data as sources (I think patent applications/grants are not considered reliable?), to support the idea that there was a 'patent trail' implicating certain manufacturers.

There is also another almost identical page (Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot), however this is also a stub, and does not seem to attract the conspiracy theorists, even though it was Boeing that was granted a relevant patent in 1996. M Stone (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My "past" comments

I'm just curious about what you're referring to here. It's not a big deal, but I do want to understand. Seeing myself as others see me....and all that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I was alluding to the Arbcom findings, which seemed (to me) to say that you were argumentative on talk pages, but the proposed findings that you had made questionable article edits did not pass. In any case, I can't see any rational reading of SV's and SG's comments which do not imply that Arbcom found that you had done something wrong, even if I cannot remember what it was. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I was cautioned, but since most of the charges made up by my opponent were false, there was no other sanction. Keep in mind that all the "findings" were charges made before any investigation or evidence had been presented. That's totally wrong. I had not "added" QW links as charged. A later amendment of that decision also removed the accusation that QW was unreliable, which vindicated both myself and QW.

My mild incivility was in response to the events surrounding the Arbcom itself. That was true enough. When someone says blatantly libelous things, one responds with strong denials. That was considered uncivil of me, but nothing happened to my accuser. Only at the end was she found to be wrong and banned.

My accusers now keep forgetting that I was the winner in that Arbcom, not the loser. They stop at the accusations, and don't mention that investigation showed the charges to be false, except for the incivility charge. Incivility isn't good, but it's not a capital offense. I learned my lesson.

I still took the cautions to heart and have been more careful. Wikipedia has changed a lot since then, I have gotten older and more patient, and now you'd be hard put to find me worse than any other respected editor, and better than some admins when it comes to incivility. I may get impatient, but usually in response to false statements about myself. We are all human here.

If only perfect people can edit here, count me out, but let my accuser look in the mirror before they start casting stones. My opposers make broad and unspecific accusations without any evidence. If they were forced to provide diffs, they'd have a hard time making a case worth anything other than a mild caution. But what about their personal attacks, incivility, baiting, and blatant failures to AGF toward me? No one warns them. Right now an editor is making a whole lot of noise and implying that I'm misusing QW, just because I defend it against false charges. I haven't added any QW links for ages, probably 3-4 years ago. (Even at the time of the Arbcom I was pretty careful. I never spammed it, and I even removed it when it was used inappropriately.) She doesn't know what she's talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

2001 - Blaise Alexander, American racing driver

You're absolutely right. Wikipedia article in one language only. Thank you. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

the tea party movement

tea party has been used for decades as a slogan for events, but ron paul is what started the catalyst for the CURRENT movementCatsmeow8989 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ron Paul said he started it in 2007, which he did. The tea party became divided in 2009 and grew bigger...Catsmeow8989 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Left_Wing_BiasCatsmeow8989Catsmeow8989 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

To Catsmeow8989: Since Arthur Rubin is restricted by the Arbitration Committee from edits dealing with the tea party, it would be better not to tempt him by mentioning it on his talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

More Zeitgeist stuff

You commented at the last RFC over on the film series article and if you are interested they are repeating elements of that there now. Also another RFC on that page if you would like to take a look. Thank you. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

I just received a very strident personal attack from the user Andy The Grump on my user page and on the RFC on the Zeitgeist fim series page. Is there anything you can do to help me deal with this? This user called me a little shit in the not so distant past on Ani. I think a bunch of people are going to gang up on me now concerning that article which is only a content dispute at heart. Thank you Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I deserve a topic ban for going to this forum and complaining about personal attacks [8]. I try to edit with guidelines and try to edit fairly. I never have made a personal attack on this project and complaining about getting p.a.'s should not boomerang me. My opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you intended to do?

I don't understand your edit summary here, you removed a bunch of content and I don't know how your explanation applies to it. I'm just checking to make sure that's what you intended to do. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. Although the content probably should be removed if disputed, I intended only to remove the implausible claim that the film used real 9/11 footage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought I was fixing double spaces on Government waste. Sorry about that. Rubbish computer 09:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Even so, you're not supposed to make changes which have no effect on display; due to the way HTML works, multiple spaces display as one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear I didn't actually know that. Thank you for informing me. Rubbish computer 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is OK to make such invisible changes, if you do it in the same edit which makes a visible and constructive change. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved from my talk

(invited, indirecly) I agree with Kww; John's ignoring [marginally) civil edit warring, while enforcing civility, is a large part of the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. Hi Arthur. Please provide some diffs for "ignoring [marginally) civil edit warring, while enforcing civility", or else strike that. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I moved this here as it really concerns your behaviour, not mine. If you find you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence in the form of diffs, in future please stay well away from my talk page as I find this sort of contribution disruptive. Unevidenced assertions and allegations about people's behaviour is worthless, in fact it has negative worth, and you should remember this going forward. Thanks a lot. If on the other hand you do find you are able to collate diffs that show the behaviour you alleged on my part, please feel free to post again at my talk, in a separate section so as not to disrupt the discussion. --John (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@John: Diffs are difficult to provide (especially on a smartphone, which is what I'm using most of the time), but User:LesVegas comments indicate he isn't willing (or able) to understand the discussion. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It seems faintly ridiculous to accuse me of ignoring something I have only just been made aware of. Please either assume good faith or do not comment in the future. Meantime I will wait for LesVegas to comment before doing anything else. --John (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to update you, I will be looking at this now that both parties have left evidence. I am a volunteer like yourself with numerous other demands on my time but I will try to come up with some intervention that will solve the problem in the next few days. If a delay arises and you feel I am ignoring the matter, feel free to ping me and I will further update you. I am still a little stung that you accused me of ignoring bad behaviour that I have been asked to look at. It only shows that you do not know me very well. I assure you that I will give this my best shot. --John (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my block notice

Hello, Arthur. Was this an accident? I'm imagining so, since there's no edit summary, but I wanted to check.  :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Quite correct. I'll check later to see if I did something else wrong.

I figured. :) It's happened to me once or twice, especially when (in my case) reverting from my watchlist - I hit "revert" on the wrong line. :/ I believe somebody else already put it back, but I was going to check with you before reverting in case you had received a private request from the user or something. I don't want anybody to feel harassed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

recurrence relation

Arthur, you deleted the Franel example from recurrence relation, but it would be good to have at least 1 example with non-constant coefficients. There are many thousands of examples in OEIS. At the moment, the article has very little about non-constant coefficients (the subsection on that topic covers only order one). MvH (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)MvH

The phrase holonomic sequence should probably also be mentioned in this example (means: a sequence that satisfies a linear recurrence with polynomial coefficients, such sequences have many nice closure properties and also correspond to holonomic functions (functions satisfying a differential equation with polynomial coefficients)). It'd be good to mention the close relation between holonomic sequences and recurrence relations. MvH (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)MvH

5th Annual Wiknic

5th Annual Wiknic (Saturday, July 11, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian, You are cordinally invited to the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic! The Wiknic is a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is tentatively planned for Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 11, 2014 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Monty Oum

Why does it have to be ten? As you said, he's on 5 different Non-English Wiki's, so clearly he's notable in other countries. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Propose something better, and get consensus for the change. There are parts of WP:OVERLINK that I think absurd, but I still follow and "enforce" them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Our friend?

108.73.113.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cheers Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 08:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Looks like it. There is little point in blocking, as he's been off for over an hour. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Noted (for auto archive) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015 Request self-revert of disruptive editing

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Americans for Prosperity, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You removed the NPOV article hat from a Tea Party movement article, while multiple threads on the neutrality of the article involving multiple editors were ongoing at article talk. Please self-revert your removed the NPOV article hat. Thank you in advance for your commitment to avoiding disruptive editing. Hugh (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: The previous NPOV tag was resolved by consensus, coincidentally while you were blocked. Guidelines suggest that a new NPOV tag should not be added without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur_Rubin

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur_Rubin. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic rescheduled

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! —howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1990 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ** [June 1990 Mineriad]]: Fighting breaks out in [[Romania]] in the aftermath of the [[Romanian Revolution]], between the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent years RFC

As an editor involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years, I wanted to make sure you saw the RFC that I placed there regarding the guidelines. Your comments are of course appreciated. agtx 19:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

7/⁊

In response to your [672367663 revert] here, it seemed reasonable to me that someone might see the symbol ⁊, very common in medieval texts, and search for it by entering 7, so I wanted to provide them with a way to find it. Lesgles (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lesgles: How about {{distinguish}}? Although, that's not the only character that looks like a "7". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Kzoo

99.109.126.84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs)

Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Square root edit

Hey Arthur Rubin, I am new to Wikipedia so pardon me if my edits and other posts are not within the format. I am still learning and wish to contribute postively to the ecosystem I had recently made a correction on the square root page of wikipedia where I had corrected that -4 is not a square root of 16. However, you seem to have felt otherwise and reverted it and I was hoping we could discuss on the topic.

Square root of 16 is only 4, as far as I know. That is why http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=square+root+of+16 shows answer as just 4 and not -4 too. I think where most people confuse this is the fact that -4 squared is 16 and hence they think square root of 16 is also -4.

See x^2=16 is a polynomial with degree 2. That means the maximum number of roots it can have is 2. Hence x = +4 and -4. On the other hand, x = sqrt(16) is a polynomial in degree 1 which means the maximum number of roots it can have is just 1. Hence only +4 is the square root of 16.

I think a popular argument is stating that there are two square roots and only positive is considered as principal. However, I would like citation on the same from a source. Can you provide that as all other credible sources just consider 4 to be square root of 16.

Additionally, I wanted to edit how principal square root is introduced (if at all such a citation exists) in a way so that people are clear only 4 is square root of 16. Students usually mistake on this.

If we can add a section explaining with the polynomial degree why square root is just 4 and not -4 it will be good.

122.169.19.85 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on MOSNUM

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Izno (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Saw this [9] and had the same reaction as you, particularly in light of this [10] conspicuous omission. I tire... Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

108.195.137.45 (talk · contribs)

Is there an SPI case page open for this editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Why should there be? He's an IP only editor. I haven't kept track of all his IPs lately, but you can see some of the early examples at User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you're blocking and bulk-reverting an editor as a sock, there should at the very least be a sock investigation page to explain why.

Why do you think they're a sock? Why do you think they're a problem? Evidence and explanation for this should be somewhere visible that other editors can see. Your IP list page hasn't been edited for two years, so that's hardly convincing evidence. As to their edits from this IP, they're very rapid and could be seen as overlinking, but I really don't see these as vandalism or as a problem sufficient to justify WP:DENY. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor noted in the IP list. If you want to question that, go ahead on WP:AN or WP:ANI, but I am one of at least 4 Admins who blocks and reverts on sight, although VSmith has been known to allow spacing edits (but not "reasonable" substantive edits), and I believe there are still 2 non-admins who revert on sight. If you want to question the original block(s), WP:ANI is the place, but I don't think you'll find any support for the theory that these are not all the same person (or possibly, a tag team on the same computer). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, check the following: Special:Contributions/99.112.215.217, Special:Contributions/108.195.138.93, Special:Contributions/99.112.213.16 and Special:Contributions/108.195.138.224 for a bit more insight from just last night. This blatant block evasion has been going on for several years (original block in 2011?). The individual is simply exploiting a fundamental weakness in WP by simply logging off - restarting with a new ip address and continuing. You, or anyone, is free to re-instate any of those edits you wish to make your edit - if you wish. Take your concerns to AN if you like - altho not a likely productive use of your time. Vsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be obvious to you, but it's far from obvious to other editors who don't know the backstory. If there's an SPI page, this sort of thing can be made obvious to all who have to deal with them. AT&T users from Mighigan isn't enough on its own.

For another thing, who is the orginal editor and where's their block? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andy. I'm familiar with this depressing situation. Please see User_talk:Arthur_Rubin/Archive_2015#1_year_block_of_108.73.115.144. I agree with Arthur and V on the identity of the IP and I'm very sure they are acting in good faith. (I don't agree with the possibility of a tag team, best I can tell it is one person.) Competency is an issue. I am not an administrator. I learned that our administrators can blocked and revert an IP on sight without community process. Hugh (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

See links here for links to an attempt to work with the person and some background info. Vsmith (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So this came up already a few months ago? If there was an SPI page, per usual process, there wouldn't be such questioning of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

An SPI page for a group of IPs would be out of process. We may need such a process, but it's not SPI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not SPI? It's socking that they're being reverted for.

We should not ever let any editor become a "block and revert on sight" target for any sub-group of admins, outside of process. Now maybe this one is OK, but there are a couple of admins out there (two obvious names spring to mind) who use this tactic as a deliberate means to squash dissent on a personal basis. De facto banning any editor should be a public process and above board.

If a particular editor, "The Michigan Kid" has become a problem (another problem, this isn't a novel situation) then we may do this. But it has to be public and clearly visible to other editors who might encounter them. We also have to be careful that this editor really is the same one, and that the punishment is not excessive. We allow enormous leeway for reform to the worst of petty vandals, maybe in the hope that "the kid" will grow out of it, and that should still apply here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporting one of these to SPI would not be helpful in identifying others; unless one were allowed to name the report "Michigan Kid", (which requires modifying templates, as there is no User named "Michigan Kid"), it would appear arbitrary even to SPI regulars. The generally deprecated WP:LTA might be appropriate, where the abuse is block evasion, rather than actions seriously and directly damaging to Wikipedia, such as WoW. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@JSmith: Do you think a WP:LTA entry would be helpful? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why is the Michigan Kid editing my talk page archives? Has he done something like this before? Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes, he has. I semi-protected one of my talk page archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Question as to the right time to use.

Hello. When describing events, which is the right time to use, Simple Present or Simple Past Tense? Editors generally use Simple Present. In the article 1962 Simple Present was used, and now another editor changed everything to Simple Past (edit dated July 30, 2015). I will be thankful for your answer. Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

New page for the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

I would like to let you know that I created the page for the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_para_la_Diplomacia_Cultural

Please let me know your opinion if this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diplomaciacultural (talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Diplomaciacultural: I am not convinced it's notable, either in English or Spanish, but it's not a speedy delete. When I have time, I'll consider nomination for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to take the challenge to improve the article and would be grateful to receive your suggestions once you can. (Diplomaciacultural (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedian engineers

Hi, Category:Wikipedian engineers has been tagged as a container (subcats only). Please consider a subcat. Thanks, Slivicon (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tax protester proposed moves

Since you commented on the move discussion at Talk:Tax protester arguments, you may also wish to comment on the parallel discussion at Talk:Tax protester. They should have been listed together as a multimove; I don't know why the nominator did not do that. bd2412 T 03:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Glider87 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.
Message added 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neve-selbert (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nature reversion

I came here wondering about this reversion [11], and if there was a particular reason to left align the images in the lead of the nature article, that didn't seem apparent. I then upon further investigation found User talk:99.109.125.193 which cleared it up. I've restored the proper alignment, so at least on that particular page, all seems good. Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

IP adding spaces

Hello. I don't know what this IP is doing but I noticed you have reverted a similar thing before. Just a heads up. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with those edit? 04:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.64.118 (talk)

The editor was blocked in 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

... or perhaps in 2011. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is an ANI notice which related to edits you have been involved with. [[12]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request notice

[13]. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Words of the week:

Ludophile and IP Anonymity Collect (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

legal plunder

were must be placed "Social Genocide" in legal plunder? --Paolo Calloxi (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AE

Hey Arthur, re this, go ahead and redact whatever you want to. I can modify my comment accordingly, no problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:AfD in 3 steps

Hi Arthur. Can the edit request at Template_talk:AfD_in_3_steps#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_25_August_2015 be marked as complete following this edit by you? (I didn't want to mark it as complete myself in case there was more to be done). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Overlink?

The use of {{USD}} is not overlinking... You may be confused with linking to US$, which is a totally different thing. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The parameter link=yes may be used to link US$ to the article United States dollar. This is turned off by default, but may be appropriate for the first occurrence of the term in an article. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are some users creating edits to seemingly remove newlines/spaces?

Hi there! Thanks for [this edit] to the Micronauts page. But out of curiosity, why are some users creating edits to seemingly remove newlines/spaces? Why would someone do this and for that matter is it worth reverting stuff like this? --SpyMagician (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpyMagician: See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the history, and the guideline specifying that edits by blocked editors may be reverted without regard to the helpfulness of the edit. In one of his recent incarnations, he said he was "standardizing" white-space to make it easier for editors. It's possible that one of the edits in each set of 15 to 250 in each run is a typo correction, but there is no easy way to tell which one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Ahhh, okay! So it’s basically easier to just revert all of the work of a known problematic user than waste time separating to the good from the bad, correct? --SpyMagician (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Otherwise you're having to make value judgements on each one – which reminds me of an old joke about wrestling with a pig. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspended topic ban lifted

Hi Arthur Rubin, in accordance with this motion of the Arbitration Committee, and because, as far as I can tell, no administrator [...]reinstate[d] the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban, I have removed the portion of the entry that deals with your suspended topic ban from WP:EDR. (This is not an arbitration clerk action, just that of an uninvolved editor noticing something to be fixed.) Remember, the 1RR in that topic area remains in effect. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

AE request closed

I have closed the AE request against you. The consensus of uninvolved administrators is that the diffs presented are too old to be actionable now. However, they do appear to represent a violation of your topic ban and had they been addressed earlier you would likely have been sanctioned. I strongly advise you to seek outside assistance if you feel that you cannot let another editor's conduct go unaddressed, but trying to deal with the problem yourself is likely to cause more problems than it solves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

note regarding sock

My point in asking the previous name of new editor VV is not that I am unaware that there was briefly Kochtruth, it's that I am convinced that this is not a new editor, and that Kochtruth was a sock. Flyer22 has a good [guideline for identifying] such and this user meets many of the points.

• Check They sign their posts in their first few edits to Wikipedia under their new account; this especially applies to an editor signing the talk page post of the first edit they make to Wikipedia. Truly new Wikipedia editors usually do not think to sign their username for their first post, and they usually have trouble remembering to sign their posts in their early days editing Wikipedia.

• Check They know Wikipedia ways like they know the back of their hands; it is extremely rare that a new Wikipedia editor will be very familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and WP:Noticeboards, especially to the point that they are citing those policies and guidelines and/or pointing to those noticeboards like they've been around for years. Same goes for slapping WP:Userboxes onto their user page. I don't care what anyone tells you about an editor knowing about all of that stuff because the editor read about Wikipedia. Unless it is a site that constantly comments on Wikipedia, it is extremely unlikely that a new editor would be that good at editing Wikipedia.

Capitalismojo (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

From the editing approach I suspect that this editor is x, evading the topic ban. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: You might try an SPI report, but check timing first. It doesn't seem the same style to me, and style is hard to fake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to advance to that absent additional evidence. What is clear, however, is that this is not a new user. It's someone's sock. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Since you are also involved with this I thought you might want to know thing are brewing... [[14]] Springee (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Identities

Hello Arthur Rubin. Where can i post my new discovered trigonometry identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr ganesh (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sgr ganesh: As I said before, the Wikibooks and Wikiversity projects have places for original research. I'm not active on either of those, so I can't be sure, but Wikibooks seems more likely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

Please note that an editor has filed an request for arbitration at Koch Industries Reputation Management, in which you have been named as a party. I'm not involved, just letting you know. BMK (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been withdrawn. BMK (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For you constant diligence in dealing with block evading IPs. Stabila711 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee procedure for the removal of withdrawn arbitration case requests, the Koch Industries Reputation Management is declined as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I need help😔

What does :

How do canadians feel about being part of the war in Syria?

Canada isnt apart of the war in Syria... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.204.231.232 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Purpose Notice

Notice [15] Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: What is the purpose of this notice? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User 99.109.127.1

I see that you reverted [[16]] anonymous user 99.109.127.1 edit of Taepodong-1. I'm not sure whom that user was associated with, however, the addition of a wiki link to RIA Novosti seemed perfectly appropriate. I also see that that anonymous user has been blocked and perhaps there are other reason for hunting down its edits. However the RIA Novosti link seemed appropriate. Would you mind explaining why that edit has been reverted? By the way, I went to read the Bertrand's box paradox aka Three cards problem because you made major contributions to it, and I loved the article and the problem.--Gciriani (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gciriani: See WP:EVASION. "He" is an IP-hopping editor who has been blocked since at least 2012, if not earlier. I'm not the only editor who reverts all his edits, and then restores 9 by those which are unquestionably appropriate. But, since he often makes an edit every minute or so for long periods of time, I don't feel it necessary to spend much time on each edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Third-party verification of ECat

Why does the Wiki article claim that Rossi's ECat has not been independently verified? It has. Wiki is very prejudicial against Rossi in this disinformation. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.85.239 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Rossi has been convicted of fraud, we give his statements very little weight. And none of the demonstrations meet the minimum qualifications for "black box" testing. Independent observers included at least one scientist, but no one put an independent meter to measure electrical power supplied. Power output was (possibly) independently verified, but not power input. Isotopic composition of the "used" "fuel" may have been verified, but not the isotopic composition of the input, nor the presence or absence of hidden chambers. We can legitimately say that Rossi has demonstrated something, but the tests do not meet minimum testing requirements, as reported by independent scientists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Leslie V. Woodcock

I'm curious about your reasoning that the "See also" links weren't useful. YoPienso (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso: The presence of more than one link on a "See also" line should only be done under unusual circumstances, and links to subjects related primarily through one of the existing links are discouraged. Perhaps one "see also" link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My observation/experience has been different:Thomas Jefferson, Climategate, Intelligent design.

YoPienso (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It would seem you've misread WP:ALSO: "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using [Columns-list] or [Div col] (redacted) if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

A bulleted list in columns must have more than one link. YoPienso (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Tangentially related, but not only indirectly related through another article already listed in the "See also" section. In other words, if A is an article, B is in the "see also" section, then C, only related to A through B, should not be in "A". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached a consensus. Thanks for your input. YoPienso (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this. What about WP:AFD? He's an otherwise-competent if unremarkable retired professor who has attained a degree of notoriety for some bizarre remarks about climate change (such as asserting that CO2 has not increased over the past 100 years). The poor fellow should be allowed to live out his retirement in peace. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Short Brigade Harvester Boris: I hesitate to claim that the article violates WP:BLP, but it certainly comes close to being WP:GOSSIP. If he ever disaffirms the statements he is alleged to have made, he would not be sufficiently notable for inclusion. As notability is not supposed to be temporary, this suggests he is not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep up the awesome work!!! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

can i

Dear Arthur, Can I contact you on linkedin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.206.104 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted external link in article Doubling the cube

Hi Arthur,
is the construction too complicated or too extensive? The basic principle is relatively simple. Application from intercept theorem in combination with number line. [17] How should it be shown that it can at least be put into external links. In Wikibooks is a description unfortunately seen only in German. Please excuse my English. I hope you can understand me, my school is very far back. [18] Greeting --Petrus3743 (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Petrus3743: I'm sure your English is better than my German. However, the construction is trivial, in a sense. For both squaring the circle and duplicating the cube, you can approximate the constant ${\sqrt {\pi }}$ or ${\sqrt[{3}]{2}}$ by a rational number, and use the intercept theorem to construct that rational number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I obviously had the wrong opinion an approximate construction could be interesting, at which the accuracy can be determined in advance. --Petrus3743 (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Petrus3743: A note on approximate constructions probably should be in compass-and-straightedge constructions, and that image seems appropriate as an illustration for that section. Let me see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin:Thanks, I would be very pleased if it were possible.--Petrus3743 (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From SergeyLiflandsky

I don't agree with you that the estimates on the matrix norms I added are "not useful" as you say. In many proofs it is convenient to use those estimates. If you think that the notations were not consistent with the rest of the articles you could fix the notations. Those estimates would be convenient and useful to most wikipedia users! You don't simply remove 1,200 lines of somebody's work. What you are doing is a brutal vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@SergeyLifiandsky:. The section you added to Matrix norm deserves a line to the effect that

$\|A\|_{2}\leq \|A\|_{F}$. The proof adds nothing. General consensus, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs#Proofs within articles, is that proofs should not be in articles unless they (the proofs) are themselves an appropriate topic of interest, or contain an elegant proof method. Neither holds for any of your recent (past 3 months) additions of proofs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard of this consensus, and it makes no sense to me. When I look up anything related to mathematics I want to see the proof of it every time, even if it is not the shortest possible proof or the most elegant proof there is. A proof is better than no proof. The more material there is in wikipedia the better and more complete it is (as long as there is no wrong content). So unless there is some unlikely storage crisis on the server common sense suggest that more is better. As for you saying that I contributed no elegant or interesting proofs I suggest that you read the proof of Kummer's test I added. It is short beautiful , elegant , rarely taught at any of the standard courses in calculus, and implies easily many interesting results, such as , the Gauss convergence tests and Rabbe's test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 14:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Stop vandalising my work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Quit your VANDALISM! This proof is a generalization of other proofs if anything else, because this tests implies the other tests. Quit vandalising my work and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are treating wikipedia like some scientific journal that seeks innovation. Wikipedia is not about innovation, it is about making things that are already known quickly available for the masses. It is much easier to find a proof in Wikipedia than to look it up in some textbook. Despite all your awards as wikipedia editor, your are ruining wikipedia for most users and I'm certain that wikipedia will be better off without editors like you. You want to keep vandalising correct proofs I spent hours on writing go ahead. You will only deter people form contributing to wikipedia, or make them vandalise your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@SergeyLiflandsky: It seems you are ignoring WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Many of your proofs would be appropriate in a textbook (or an exercise in a textbook), but proofs similar to existing proofs are not appropriate in a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a new editor and to be honest I didn't spend hours reading all those detail guidelines and policies regarding proofs that you mentioned. I use common sense. According to you if someone adds to wikipedia more details about the intimate life of some pornstar, or more details on how the critics responded to some failed film it is good and interesting. But when someone adds a mathematical proof it is uninteresting and bad. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, and I chose to share my knowledge of the proof. When the proof is written the user can choose either to read or not to read it and thus obviously a written proof is better than no proof. What you do is exactly the opposite of what wikipedia intends, because you block people from accessing the knowledge I chose to share. If there were mistakes in the proof I would applause anyone who removes such a proof. However if it is the punctuation or the style that you don't like, then do something useful and improve it! Regarding the proof of the Weierstrass M-test. You claim that you have cleaned it up. In fact you made it far less readable. There is enough space on the servers of wikipedia to store those extra few words of clarification. You minimalist approach is detrimental. It seems to me you really want to know how it feels to be an editor of the Annals of Mathematics. But your are not an editor there , and wikipedia is not the Annals of Mathematics so please stop your vandalism. One more thing that you need to understand. If someone looks up for something in wikipedia it is most likely that he is a student and not a professor of mathematics from Harvard university. Therefore it is our goal to make wikipedia more useful to the majority of the users, and make it look more like a textbook rather than a brief summery of topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 07:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uniform convergence may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I may agree with you that the proof on uniform convergence is unnecessary but it is still written the unwritten. About Kummer's test I think we got some mutual understanding. Regarding the Weierstrass M-test in my opinion you did a horrible job. An article in wikipedia is not supposed to look like a competition in understanding long dull strings in the formal symbolic language of set theory. A proof should be readable. I think that you will agree with me that a professional mathematician will not be looking for a proof of the Weierstrass M-test. If anybody is looking for it it is most likely a student that struggles to understand the subject. Now thanks to instead of having a readable easy to understand proof he gets to read those dull strings in the formal language. Seriously wikipedia will be better off without editors like you. Now please get a life and either contribute a proof of your own or go sabotage someone else's work. I strongly recommend that you will start editing articles in wikipedia concerned with lives of pornstars and start deleting details about their lives which you find uninteresting, or even better try rewriting those details in the formal language of set theory. If you will succeed in this I will acknowledge your genius! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeyLiflandsky (talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Golden wedding

Hello, would you please create a disambiguation page for Golden Wedding? Currently this phrase redirects to Wedding anniversary. I am not sure how to do this. The new page should also list the tune The Golden Wedding and the play by Desfontaines-Lavallée ----Design (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Design: Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hexadecimal

In re this, what are the colors supposed to mean? --JBL (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis:

• Green = factors of B
• Blue = factors of B-1
• Orange = factors of B+1
• Red = other primes.

Green, Blue, and Red are mentioned (but not defined) in the table header.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Terradactyl (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nerdy Question

Why do you use quotes at the Earth system science page in referring to me as the "moderator"? Do you have an objection to my moderation, which I will consider, or are you just using philosopher's quotes, or what? Again, no offense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No offense intended, but I didn't think that "moderator" was the "official" term. Actually, I don't remember you using it. And, I was referring to the comment above on the talk page, and I'm my smartphone, making it difficult to check multiple windows. I (probably) won't do it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We are cool. No problem. I am the volunteer moderator or mediator in the discussion, until I give up on it. Thank you for being reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones

Hey Arthur, re: this edit summary, I checked and the site/article displays a bit funny on my (android) phone, mainly because the actual list of people (and linked articles about each of them) don't display.

If your phone handles it the same way, that may explain why we disagree over what it verifies. Maybe load it up on a non-mobile browser when you get it a chance. We'll probably still disagree over how to use/interpret it - but it does sound like you might be missing some of the content. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating a DRAFT for the RfC mentioned on the recent DR/N case

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: 100.2.244.59

Arthur, can you follow-up on the warning you left at User talk:100.2.244.59? They have continued calling people out as transphobic and generally done nothing but stir the pot on the Caitlyn Jenner talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Number 19

Very well sir, I surrender. It's obvious this wonderful nuance I stumbled upon will never make it onto your page. And so I have to ask, if WP is supposed to be the world's encyclopedia, where can this bit of information be stored so it will be readily available for anyone to discover? Pleeseemailme (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tea Party movement page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Number 19 Follow Up 1

Sir, perhaps 10 days is insufficient time to wait for a response regarding my request above. Either way, I would like to mention here that I am still waiting for a suggestion on how to proceed. Thanks. Pleeseemailme (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

About user Stewi101015

Would you please let me know some more information about the Stewi101015 block evasion? Is this user another with diferent names? He is making a lot of "authomatic nosense" editions in the Spanish Wikipedia and I want to study the case. Thanks a lot. --DPC (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Perez:. He is almost certainly "the Michigan Kid" or proxying for "the Michigan Kid", first blocked in 2012 as various IPs, including one at the Kalamazoo public library, blocked for many years for vandalism (probably for a different person), and various residential IPs in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. Some of the IPs have been globally blocked. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the history. You can also ask the simple.Wikipedia admin who blocked him there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --DPC (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Alex Jones

Thanks for the link. I have checked it out and it does seem to be acceptable. The website and YT channel are free for viewing to my knowledge unless I'm missing something. From what I can see, the policy is in favor of this kind of linking.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And it starts again...

[[19]] Springee (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the page considered related to conservative politics? [[20]] Springee (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Citizens United is considered related to conservative politics, although the WP:TRUTH of the relationship is in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Plutocray

The conclusions of Gilens and Lichtman are well established. It's a few days away from 2016, not 1916. I suggest you get up to speed on the sources and use the talk page to make your case. Unsupported maintenance tag POV tag pushing will get deleted. Your denial that the US is a plutocracy is a fringe opinion. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I read the talk page. No reliable source has been accurately quoted as saying that the US is a plutocracy. Sources have been quoted as saying it has aspects of a plutocracy and may be an oligarchy. It's your job to find the sources, as I do not believe they exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, I didn't ask you to read the talk page. I asked you to make your case for adding maintenance tags on the talk page, as you know you are supposed to do. Why do I have to keep asking that you do this? You consistently use maintenance tags for the sole purpose of pushing POV. That's not what they are used for. If you think the sources are being misused, say so on the talk page. However, I think you are misinformed. Once again, we see you are about two years behind. Since 2014, it has been well established without dispute that "for the first time in history, more than half the members of the House and Senate are now millionaires".[21] Krugman's opinion that the U.S. government "has been warped and paralyzed by the power of a small, wealthy minority" is simply a matter of historical fact. Your attempt to delineate between oligarchy and plutocracy is simply ridiculous. The oligarchs the sources are discussing are plutocrats, as you already know. Plutocracy, in other words, is a form of oligarchy. Please don't even attempt to debate this point. For example, the Koch brothers are plutocrats who in turn fund and support oligarchy. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Nonsense, as usual. We would need reliable sources that support the statement that those sources are talking about plutocracy, because they do not use the term. They might exist, but I tend to doubt it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you making the extraordinary claim that an oligarchy by wealthy elites is not a plutocracy? If you are making that extraordinary claim, and it certainly appears that you are, then please explain why and how an oligarchy by wealthy elites is different than a plutocracy. If you cannot do this, then you must forfeit your argument and self-revert your deletions. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See the article talk page. Although I didn't state it there, there was one source which suggested the (stated) concerns of the poor were not treated with at much interest as (stated) concerns of the wealthy and of interest groups. Nothing was said about whose "interest" the interest groups were supporting. One might assume that of the wealthy, but that assumption would require evidence, as labor unions were specifically included in "interest groups" by another source.

Why don't you read the talk page to see that only one editor suggested that the references supported the statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you are evasive and unwilling to discuss your edits. Because the evidence in question is so overwhelming and extensive, I'm curious when you will finally accept it, or if you will persist in denying it. What kind of evidence will you accept? If the answer is none, then I will once again warn you about POV pushing and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If the evidence is so "overwhelming", why don't you present some. It hasn't been done on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, you removed the evidence. You know, this is the same pattern of disruption you've engaged in other areas, from climate change to the Tea Party movement. I think you are deliberately engaging in bad faith edits supported by bad faith justifications for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything (this time; I may have removed irrelevancies previously). I moved the entire deletion to the talk page for comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The sort of people who support Bernie Sanders may (mostly) believe that the United States is a plutocracy. But that is not true for the majority of Americans.
One million dollars is not as much as it used to be. Merely being a millionaire is commonplace, not a sign that one is a plutocrat. Besides I think that most members of Congress become rich after they are first elected (due to bribes, speaking fees, book sales, and such), not before. And I would not accept Paul Krugman as an authority for anything; he is a bigoted idiot. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: I agree that Krugman is a bigoted idiot, but he is a Nobel-prize winning economist, and his opinions on economic matters should be in Wikipedia unless clearly outside of his field of expertise or refuted in reliable sources, even if wrong. See WP:TRUTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IkbenFrank

Dear Arthur Rubin, you may live in North America. Living there does not mean a Canadian is a Yank as an example. And neither do inhabitants of the British Isles see much affinity with Europe as such?

If there are better railways for each decade what would you suggest as the technology governed the thinking of each decade. What think ye? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)

The UK is part of Europe. If you were to create a sub-sub-sub-sub section for the UK, and it were possible to generate distinctive headers, that might be an option. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@IkbenFrank: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Now I have added the most significant details to the 1990s which shaped the UK. Perhaps you have an agenda to give a Tea Party perspective on the World in these decades?