User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

Divisibility tests

Hi Arthur, would you explain to me what criteria qualifies something as a "test" for divisibility that modulo division doesn't meet? I'd like to try and convince you otherwise.  ;) The definition on the page says "A divisibility rule is a shorthand way of discovering whether a given number is divisible by a fixed divisor without performing the division, usually by examining its digits.". Modulo division does exactly this, it examines the digits, doesn't actually perform the division, and it is very much a shorthand method compared to long division; it is also just as easy to do as the tests such as summing the digits. And regardless of the divisibility rule's declared criteria, calculating the remainder is the de facto "test" for divisibility, it is the most true test there is for divisibility. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a modulo operation isn't a "test". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAugustus (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How can you say it doesn't perform the division? If you look closely, the algorithm does the division and finds and throws away the quotient digit by digit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You are making a reasonable assumption, but it is not always true in practice. I'm making a different assumption.  ;) I acknowledge that this method looks, in theory, a lot like doing long division, but you really *must* try it yourself a few times, and compare it to the other divisibility tests. In a strictly technical sense, I can say that division is not being performed, because in fact you do not need to find and discard the quotient digits. You could use a table of pre-computed remainders. You can also use a list of factors of your divisor to 'look up' a nearby multiple, and never know the quotient digit. In practice, it is quite easy to do this mentally, provided you've memorized the 1-digit multiplication table -- that is my assumption. Modulo division doesn't feel like long division. It is also significant that you can write a modulo division on paper without writing the quotient digits, the bookkeeping for modulo division is simpler than for long division.

You were probably notified, but in case not, I've added some more discussion and reasons I think modulo division should be included, on the divisibility rule talk page. There are multiple ways to look at this, and maybe one of them is just that long division, at least for one digit divisors, is actually far easier than most people make it out to be. But the premise of the divisibility rule's page is that the methods it describes are easier to calculate mentally or manually than performing long division. I believe that modulo division does this. I also believe that testing divisibility for 7 is easier to do via modulo division than by any other method, and for 3, 6, 9 and 11, modulo division is as easy as other known methods. Modulo division also complements the 8's test, since it gives you a way to break even a 3-digit remainder problem down into 2 smaller operations.

So now its your turn, your stated reason for deleting my edits was your opinion that modulo division doesn't represent a test for divisibility, where I assume that you are implying that modulo division isn't easier than long division. Modulo division does in fact test for divisibility, so if you're drawing a line about how easy something needs to be to qualify for inclusion on this page, will you elaborate and clarify? If the easiest known method of testing for divisibility by 7 was to do long division, wouldn't that be the most appropriate entry in the divisibility rules article? We aren't obligated to list only the tests that are unintuitive and weird, right, even when they're actually more difficult to calculate than long division?

You are also right about my edits being unsourced. Modulo division is a known method, and I can only prove that it works, but I don't know where it comes from, and I've been looking for a published source for a while. You have more formal math training that I do, and regardless of whether this stuff ends up in the article I'm interested in finding sources, perhaps you could help me find some, or suggest ways to find them?

DavidAugustus (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "modulo division" is ever referenced as being different from short division, and short division shouldn't be listed for each number in divisibility rule. I have little objection to short division being a separate heading, not associated with any individual divisor.

As for the difference, there is no difference. If you have a list of the multiples of 7, (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 45, 63), it's less than a step to associate each multiple with the corresponding quotient. I find it unlikely that there is a source distinguishing them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Fetzer

FYI: Per the talk page, I added "acrimonious relationship" in an attempt to please/make some sort of compromise with the article's subject. I prefer the original language you reverted, too, though. Location (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but the source doesn't say "acrimonious relationship", so it's a BLP violation. Carry on. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't apologize for interfering; I actually would like a few more eyes on the page so those involved don't think I'm on a mission to suppress Fetzer's views! You are correct that "acrimonious relationship" was my assessment of the text (i.e. page 5 of the Mosedale reference states "The acrimony between Fetzer and Thompson moved into a new phase thanks to a former St. Louis County prosecutor named Thomas Bieter."[1]). Again, I prefer it the way you have restored it. Cheers! Location (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:A_priori_and_a_posteriori#Please_JUSTIFY_the_inclusion._Occuring_on_the_same_web_page_is_not_enough.
Message added 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Maurice Carbonaro's talk page.
Message added 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

see also

• previous odd wikilinks
• moar pablo 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Woolrich

Hello Arthur, since I commented on this at WP:REFUND I'd better let you know you directly as well. Whilst I don't approve of Davodd restoring his article himself, your re-deleting it has just made matters worse. First new facts and sources had been added which together with the links to the rather rich Italian and German pages would make it clearly pass A7 in my eyes, and secondly reverting an action that you already considered wheel warring doesn't stop it all but only adds another spin to the wheel. At this point the refund board isn't really the place to turn to for a fourth admin to make a call, so I kindly ask you to reconsider your deletion. Thanks --Tikiwont (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well. One of the points is potentially a claim of notability. I'll just have to send it to AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The edit is: [2]. BTW, in it you added # (your turn), which was lost when I reverted your edit. S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Just now, after I have reverted your edit, signed X's, added my own comment, edited my own comment, I see where X had said "Okay.. feel free to edit." I had missed it because the "feel free" was above the ersatz sub-section heading. (The misleading heading has been removed and X's list has been indented.) Still, I strongly recommend that we limit the discussion to whether a list should be in place. 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I misread it, missing the "talk". The warning was justified, I'm afraid. "X" had edited guidelines to support xis interpretation, so I thought xe was doing it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Demonstrated Preference

Hello Arthur Rubin. I see you've been looking at Demonstrated Preference. It appears to me that the entire article is SYNTH, OR, not written as an encyclopedia article, among other problems. I left a note for X on the talk page, but frankly I am afraid of sparking a futile edit war so I am holding back further activity there and would welcome any contribution you can make.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I admit to not being an economist, but there's no "there" there. It appears that revealed preference (assumed not to be a function of time) and demonstrated preference (assumed to be a function of time) are different (but related) concepts, but we don't have anything other than an unsourced definition, quotes, "See also", and readings (I wouldn't call them "references"). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, so how can we get this corrected or possibly the article deleted without a pointless edit war with this user? On the substance the fact is that "preference" is a matter of interpretation and the whole revealed/demonstrated preference approach is full of problems and not widely accepted.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

HAARP Conspiracy theories

I see that you have removed the conspiracy theory on how the HAARP affects weather, as if it was "More Non-sense". Of course it could be more non-sense but it is a conspiracy theory nevertheless! You have to be careful not to cloud your mind with your own personal believes that it is non-sense or not. You have to look around, investigate and research the field. Many times, I have seen this theory in documentaries, even in main stream TV. This "Conspiracy theory" exists, and deleting on the pretense that it is non-sense does not serve anybody that looks for general knowledge. We could ask you, suppose that this HAARP theory is real, then what is the scientific basis principles that could make HAARP affect weather in the minds of the people that believes in the HAARP conspiracy??? What will be your answer after you have done your research on that mater? --Fady Lahoud (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a _non-notable_ conspiracy theory. We need a reliable source commenting on that theory, not an unreliable source propounding the theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it is so subjective to juge reliable from unreliable, We could present a tone of "conspiracy theory references" and it would still be subjected to "unreliability" that is why I suggest to people to do their own research and try to find for their selves what to "Judge" and not always let others dictates what should they have to accept or not. So did you find something on that mater? I could find tones of it, even links to documentaries that passed on TV...But the problem is that ALL will be unreliable. It is a well known politic.--Fady Lahoud (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of them Youtube (History chanel) I am not asking you to believe in the reality of it, I am asking you if you believe that there is a conspiracy theory on it. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) This is another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ucpy1WYXY --Fady Lahoud (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Part 2/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2M9oGkjRs Part 3/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MppReIR6hQ Part 4/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyXu9Taa6_4 Part 5/5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJKFhVpDEM Etc.

Look at all these: http://www.youtube.com/user/HaarpWeapon2011/videos?view=0

So you want more??? It seems that all around Wikipedia there is more information than Wikipedia... And Wikipedia is suffering the lack of contents. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS as for what we need. If you did your research, you would realize that I'm (at least partially)responsible for the reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories being in the main 9/11 article. You haven't added anything from a reliable source or pointed to by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think that there is a reliable sources to confirm that there is a conspiracy theory that explains the process of HAARP like Wikipedia policies wants it. So I give up. Anyways, there is a lot of information all around to explain it without having the need to include a small paragraph in Wikipedia to explain it. It makes me a little bit sad but what we can do. If you feel the need to do something, feel free. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Year in fiction

Hmm. My memory is the opposite. There's certainly no section for it in the example layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. I believe that a decision was made to replace such sections with articles such as Works of fiction set in 1989 - though there isn't one for Works of fiction set in 1345 (as yet). Deb (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RETAIN (well, I thought there was the concept that information should be kept if the only question was which Wikipedia article to put it in, but I can't find the guideline), it should be kept somewhere.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The correct place would be Works of fiction set in 1345 or maybe Works of fiction set in the 14th century. I suppose I could create the latter and fill it up with this kind of trivia removed from the historical year articles. Do you have a view on that? Deb (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Do we have an appropriate categorization scheme for it to fit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It should come under the existing category Category:14th century in fiction, I assume. Deb (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I have a question: How is it a copyright violation when your bringing in someone's quotes to Wikipedia like Sam Adam's article? Wethar555 (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You brought in the (probably excessive) quote. If you credit the speaker, it's not plagiarism, but it still could be a copyright violation. Under current law, an expression is copyrighted when recorded in a fixed medium, such as a videotape or digital file, whether or not authorized by the speaker. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment change notification

Just to let you know, I made a minor change to my comment after you replied here [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not worth changing my comment, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

50 (number)

Hello! As for me, my note in 50 (number) deleted by you is so interesting, but maybe it should be in other article. Maybe, in Platonic solids or 100 (number) (just 100 is the sum of their faces and vertices). If this sum were, for example, 86 then it would be not interesting at all. But such a round number in this situation is unexpected and therefore interesting. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Round numbers and arbitrary sums of numerical attributes of things are NOT notable. Especially in an article about a round number. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy Header

I understand your comment from the MfD now. The next question comes, can you have two colons in a page title? I think a better place for the header would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Talk header. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

edit war w/ X

Thanks, AR. I understand. Please note I had posted an inuse banner when s/he edited despite it. See my remark about the "edit war" on X's talkpage. When s/he did it twice I gave up.--S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

discrete semiprime

Can you tell me what a discrete semiprime is? I understand that a semiprime is a natural number that is the product of two not necessarily distinct primes, but I'm not having any luck with the modifier 'discrete' which shows up on many of the number pages.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntropyman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are using "discrete" instead of "distinct". So they might be referring to non-square semiprimes.

If you gave links to the articles which bother you, this would be easier to diagnose and fix. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful additions to the "Paradoxes" section of the "Perfection" article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see "Tunnel diode" on the "Talk:Perfection" page. Maurice Carbonaro is intent on reintroducing his irrelevancies into the "Perfection" article. I think it would be very damaging if he succeeded. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Alan & X?

I'm not familiar with Alan's history. And at the risk of sounding like X, can you specify what guidance I was infringing on with regard to the categorization issue? Egad, I certainly don't want to engage in behavior which even slighly risks blocking! My approach with X has been one of encouragement and warning. It looks like he's a former GI, as am I -- and I hope my kicks-in-the-pants along with atta-boys will help. I've urged him to edit in areas he knows more about (e.g., military topics), offered suggestions about article improvement, and I've praised him for dropping the out-and-out insults. Your guidance for me, here or via email, is/will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW: I searched and searched for info on commenting out the categories via an added colon. Eventually I found WP:SP. In trying to understand it, I developed a suggested revision. [4] Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Sorry, who's Emerson? [5]

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (probably improperly) attributed to Emerson. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfD:Other people's money

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

lgm?

I think you mistook Little green rosetta [6] for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Choice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice talk page

Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was saying that the edit was typical of X, and I expected better from Hugo. However, I guess I need to clarify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxable income

Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it....

Tax = (tax on taxable income) less tax credits

Taxable income = gross income less deductions.

Perhaps the sentences needed to be reordered, but they both needed to be there. The anon deleted the tax credits sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You will laugh

[7]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It isn't.

Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I confused you with Xerographica. It's still the case that there is no reason to include the McAlister section, and it violates Wikipedia polices, but I'll have to consider whether your other edits are an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now restored your revert except for the excessive inclusion of McAllister's opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the dummy-edit clarification. As for the "McAllister section", it's still there, you merely removed a clarifying single sentence from it. Your edit summary suggests that a "good argument" for removing that specific McAllister content exists, but I haven't seen it. Could you direct me to it? I also certainly haven't seen an indication that policy (or policies) have been violated; which policy? My intent is to revert the bold removal of that long-standing content pending an actual argument for removal being presented, and an actual policy violation being specified (unless I missed an already existing discussion somewhere). I see that you refer to the content as "excessive", am I to understand it's a length issue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The McAllister paragraph is much too long, as it is, and McAllister's opinions on desired future actions, as opposed to opinions about what actually happens or happened, is much less relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!

- MrX 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing at Koch Industries

I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you mixed up with another user, I also updated the Talk page. Cowicide (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning (warning now stricken)

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning. 1. EW has not occurred. 2. WP:DTTR. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this warning was meant for another user, please ignore.Cowicide (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, please strikeout the template message. It will help. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, did I strike out the template tag correctly or should I do more? Cowicide (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Assuming your permission, I will do the whole thing and modify the section heading. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:KochPAC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seen — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For explaining the Idaho referendum process in terms of the California election law, which is familiar to me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"dead. like always"

Where is that quote from? It's niggling at the back of my mind, and google is no help. siafu (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Answered in E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose all of the "proposed topic bans" and consider this is a case of running amok. I did use one (three letter word) in my response to the proposal to ban you from all US political articles which I hereby grant you permission to alter if it offends your sensibilities at this season. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 06:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

abt that insertion idea

the construction of the solution tries to use insertion , there is also a data prescan but algo is not debugged n its work awfully if it is corrected/debugged , only O(n^1,9)... i think it could do better... 93.118.212.93 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

List of important publications in anthropology

Hi Arthur Rubin, it has been a while since we last made contact. Perhaps you remember that I accused you of vandalism and vice versa and we were at the brink of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering. My apologies for the disputes back then. I believe we are contributing to Wikipedia with the best of our intentions. I am back on Wikipedia, and I hope that I have learnt more about how this community works. As you seemed to be very knowledgable concerning Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, I'd like to ask you when it is appropriate to send an article through WP:AfD. Do you see yourself rather as a 'deletionist' or 'inclusionist' wikipedian? My previous List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature was surely a candidate for WP:AfD. Now, it has been requested by Cnilep that List of important publications in anthropology be moved to Bibliography of anthropology. Your comments on this request are most welcome. Please see Talk:List of important publications in anthropology#Requested move. Anthrophilos (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

You have said several times that you think I misunderstand policy. Perhaps you missed where I asked you to clarify which policy you think I misunderstand, and why you think I do? Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 22:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as you are making corrections, could you please remove the following sentence from the ANI subpage:

• You restored it, and the material you restored is clearly not in the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you had me confused with Zenographica again, or someone else. I didn't make that restoration. Thanks much, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do. I still think you were edit-warring about McAllister, but that's a minor point, and North8000 didn't bring it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

KillerChihuahua is a she. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

Sorry about that. I got an E-mail mentioning her wife, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. From a somewhat confused person, I guess. Might they have been referring to her wife Mr Chihuahua?[8] :-) But don't worry, I think Puppy's username deceives even more people into assuming she's a he than my own does. Bishonen | talk 12:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC).

"For the female of the species is more deadly than the male." Kipling, The Female of the Species, Stanza 1 (1911).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pfaffian

Put in your formula the Pauli matrix σ², and you will get 1 = - 1. This means that your formula is incorrect. Trompedo (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added more detail, as it doesn't obviously follow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

column/article

Hi Arthur, I don't know if you saw my comment on the TPM talk page but the Al Hunt Letter from Washington is considered a column and is actually published by the International Herald Tribune. I emailed the managing editor of the NYTs. I also looked into Teaparty.org and couldn't find any notability for them, unlike Tea Party Patriots, etc. That edit relies solely on a primary source anyway. I'd like to edit both things at the same time. One, correct Al Hunt's bit by adding in column and IHT. And delete teaparty.org and put in Tea Party Patriots agenda/mission which is supported by RS. Are these edits that can be done at the same time or would that be two edits that might be considered reverts? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you do them at the same time, it would only be one revert for the purpose of 3RR, and (their being in the same section) probably only one revert for 1RR, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edit being in the same section is what has me unsure. Here is the language on the warning on the talk page:

"No editor may make more than one (1) revert on the same content per twenty-four (24) hour period, excluding blatant vandalism. The three revert-rule still applies to the article at large." It's the "same content." Now,I interpret that to mean, you revert "Joe was born in Kansas," and you keep doing it, that's the same content. But what if it's in the same section? I just don't want an admin to say changing two different things in the same section that makes it the "same content." Malke 2010 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there is different content, so they should be treated independently; but the fact that some editors are reordering the "mission statements" confuses the issue. The simplest way to think of it is, as far as you are concerned, the entire paragraph is now a single piece of "content", for 1RR.

At least, if you do it as a single edit.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Also, when I was trying to run down Al Hunt at the New York Times, I came across a sort of NYTs reference library and this is how they characterize the tea party [9]. Since this is not opinion but the result of reporting and fact-checking, and arguably by some of the best people who know how, might this be a better choice rather than the Al Hunt bit? Especially since Al Hunt's piece doesn't really back up the things he's saying. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be "background", which is not as good as an actual article, but it's better than Al Hunt's piece. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the same, that it was "background," but at least it's been vetted and beats 'opinion.' Okay, I'll go with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

question

Arthur, I wrote an article for Jenny Beth Martin but when I tried to move it to the project space I got a message that an article for her had already been deleted. I reviewed the link and it seems it was deleted for copyright vio concerns among other issues. I left a note on the admin's page. My question is, it is a big deal to get this unraveled, or is it something the admin who deleted it can fix? I think she's notable and should have an article. I have RS, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If the page was at Jenny Beth Martin, what was deleted was a redirect to Tea Party Patriots. The deletion reason at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Jenny Beth Martin was "better a redlink than a misleading redirect", with a possible {{db-author}}, as the editor who created the redirect agreed with the deletion. I don't see any reason for you to be unable to create the article, or to there being any objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Talk:KochPAC.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I should've read your message a little more thoroughly before calling a talkback, but I think we're pretty much on the same page.   — C M B J   02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I am not suprised or so upset with the result as I am with the manner in which it was done. You are involved, so I am not asking you do anything, just whether something should be done. He seems to be doing this quite often, and has had other concerns. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a model for complaining about a pattern of non-admin closures. For complaining about an individual closure, WP:DRV is appropriate. I've seen complaints rejected at ANI, leaving only (among venues that I can think of) RFC/U. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Binders full of women consensus reversion

While I respect your decision to edit the result, could you please edit the Talk page and the 2nd AFD nomination page to match? I would do so myself, but I am not in a mood to have the discussion I was having with the complainer turn into what could be considered an edit war. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this just needs to go to DRV. I see the consensus of policy-based arguments as merge or delete. For what it's worth, I made the decision before I was contacted by the complaintant above. I don't expect the redirect to stick, because it appears that enough editors are motivated to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that any anti-Romney meme will get an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fictional futures

I understand you value these sections but most of them are not cited material. I felt no obligation to necessarily transfer them to a new page because they are not verified and cited. If these fictional mentions had been cited, I would have been compelled to preserve the material and move it to a new article. --☥NEO (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)'

With that said, I think we can all agree that uncited material can be removed without question. --☥NEO (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, not entirely. Although Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if the setting is sourced in our article on the subject, it should be adequate, just as citations are not required in 2013 for (alleged, in some cases) factual events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring zero divisors and unity to the first line of integral domain. When adapting the previous editor's changes, I unwittingly transported the zero-divisor bit down with a block, and then deleted it because I thought it was in the first line. What you added in is exactly what I think should be there. Rschwieb (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Integral domain

Hello!

I am rather sure that you are aware of the fact, that your definition of Integral domain is tautologous.

According to the prevailing consensus-algebra, a ring is a ring, but a commutative ring is a commutative ring with identity. - How beautiful!

What do you think of taking the confusing statement out of the lead?

Fylgia Fock (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the definition was much clearer before you started munging it. However, you're right. I should just say commutative ring, rather than commutative ring with identity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Propositional logic

Why did you remove the proofs of inference rules of propositional logic??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.57.199 (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion at WT:MATH, specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Feb#Proof of logical inferences; the "proof" of a rule of inference undoubtably uses other rules of inference. It's completely arbitrary as to which rules are used, and which system of reporting proofs (numbered lines, sequents, etc.) In general, though, we do not include proofs unless the specific proof is of some importance in the history of the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Excessive, reflexive blocking of an editor?

Arthur, I just noticed that you blocked an anon editor, 99.119.129.34. This anon had made a few edits [10] [11] to pages I watch, which you reverted [12] [13] with the explanation "Blocked editor, not particularly constructive. (TW)." I reverted one of these reversions, and integrated the material with the article. I took a look at this editor's contributions: they consist of a series of about 60 edits, one every 1-15 minutes, in the approximately three hours from 7:07 to 9:55 today. You blocked the editor at 10:01. I looked at a sample of this editor's edits: they are generally minor additions of links [14] [15], adding suggested improvement boxes [16], and minor but cited additions to content [17] [18]. Nothing spectacular, but nothing particularly objectionable, and certainly all in good faith, as far as I can tell. Also as far as I can tell, you didn't contact the anon by leaving anything on his/her talk page.

Now, I'm trying to assume good faith myself: is there something going on here that I'm not aware of? You quoted WP:EVASION on the block, so maybe you think this anon is a sock puppet?

If there's no back story, what I see is someone making moderately constructive and certainly good faith edits for nearly three hours, probably from their home computer or other non-public device, then without warning or engagement getting slapped with a three month block. This person was probably online at the very time you hit him with a block. I can't think of a more off-putting and alienating experience for a new editor.

Is this really where we're at as a community? Blocking good faith anons on sight? I ask you to read this article on the effect of rejecting new editors, and perhaps reconsider your use of Twinkle

Erudy (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

He's not a "good faith anon". He is the same, one person who is intentionally editing around blocks since at least November 2012, with some short=term blocks as far back as August 2012. He has not stopped violating WP:OVERLINK, WP:REDLINK, and WP:NOTNEWS, among other guidelines. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the history. I wasn't keeping good records back in 2010, when he was already adding global warming wherever climate change occured, and vice versa, linking 350.org to every occurence of the number "350" in Wikipedia, and other non-productive actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if he still does it, but he used to reconnect when blocked, in the past, so that he started up editing within 10 minutes of the block. I don't think he does that, any more. In any case, if you want to notify him, go ahead, but he won't be there to see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, got it. I spent a bunch of time looking over some of the history that you've compiled (although clearly not as much time I've you've spent chasing him). Pretty frustrating: someone who knows how to edit, has a lot of time, and makes some mildly constructive edits occasionally. Wish I knew how to convert him into somebody more productive for the project. Have you all tried engagement beyond edit summaries? It may be futile, but given how much of your time he's taking, it might be worth it if it gets him to change his behavior.Erudy (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How? The user talk page is hopeless, although there may be something to said about the "permanently" (5 year)-blocked library IP talk page in the 97s. (Note, though, that the trigger for it being blocked was vandalism, not the sort of marginal editing done for the past year or so.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of the scenario that you catch him in the middle of editing...if he's actually on line, a message at the talk page of an anon should trigger a notice at the top of his screen, right? I'm not sure...been a while since I edited anonymously. Of course, going to the talk page after he's gone is worthless; you'd have to catch him in the act. Like I said, there's a good chance it's futile, but given how much of your time he seems to take, it might be worth it.Erudy (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hispanic Majority" categories

It is probably worth adding them now. Just removing the top category, which is what will happen if they are not, will create a lot of orphaned categories, and the whole thing will need to go to CfD at some point anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll relist it, then, to make sure it has adequate coverage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it later tonight (PDT). Sorry about the delay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A reality TV show presents a known named man robbing a bank

I would like your input on a matter of a possible WP:BLP violation.

A reality TV show presents a known named man robbing a bank.

Thus, the primary source of information is the show itself. The TV director chooses what to film and the TV editor chooses what to keep - they are just as any author of a quotable source by the choices they make.

In a daily wiki synopsis for the show I say that "John Smith the known named man robs banks". I am quoting a reliable source since anyone whom watches the show also saw the same thing. If wikipedia is worried about slander charges - wikipedia says there were authors of the show, TV director and TV editor, whom if they presented some type of doctored footage they are to blame not wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bering_Sea_Gold is the actual possible WP:BLP issue - please see the talk revision history for the discussion of content for the wiki article on "Scott Meisterheim commited a crime on TV".

Thanks in advance for any work done to explain if or if not BLP.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be a synthesis that he committed a crime; combining the (potentially reliable) facts that A had a restraining order to keep away from B and that A "flicked a cigarette" at B. As for the hypothetical; I recently watched a 1968 Dragnet episode in which a bank robber used hostage-partners (his MO was that he waited for a woman to pick him up, forced her to rob a bank, and then take off in the stolen car, leaving the woman). Watching some of the show, you could easily see that the first woman was a bank robber, but you would be wrong. If, even in the context of the show, a reliable source (such as the police) said he was a bank robber, then you might have a case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

KC

FYI, KC is a "she".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been told that (above). <redacted> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Np, just reading the circus now.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to make some comment related to the common epithet for a female dog, but decided to redact it. Perhaps it will make it easier to remember her gender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good call; I hardly think personal attacks on me via vulgar language will encourage me to believe your apology is anything but self-serving. I will note you have company; Ed Poor also thought that would be amusing, but he actually did it, on his user page no less. I am pleased to see you have good enough judgment to refrain from actually doing this, although disappointed you didn't refrain from commenting that you'd considered it. Seems like a stealth method of calling me the name, without being guilty of actually doing so - it is basically "I thought about calling her a bitch, but I decided not to" which is less than stellar civility. I am very sorry if you feel my evidence on the RFAR case is in any way personal; I feel you've shown appallingly bad judgment and that your calling for sanctions with zero diffs and then refusing to respond to requests for said diffs is poor behavior for an admin. You know better, Arthur, you really do. KillerChihuahua 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page.
Message added 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from A Quest For Knowledge

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at A Quest For Knowledge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

my picture

Please don't remove my picture. I am posting it for two reasons. Two show my photography work, and also because I like the fact he was showing the bumper sticker with the state's slogan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalindgren1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

McMartin preschool trial

Thanks for the edit - I like your word choice of 'alleged'. (oops - please consider this a 'Barnstar') Jmg38 (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Cultural Diplomacy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Cultural Diplomacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Best regards, SkaraB 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse

Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Just noticed that you blocked a user at the IP 99.112.212.104 and removed what seemed a good faith comment the editor had left on the talk page of David Shambaugh. Just curious what the rationale here was, as it's not immediately evident what the user did to merit a block, and there's nothing on their talk page. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the IPs; the 99.112 faction is still under a block. "Good faith" is not plausible, nor in issue. He's a blocked editor, and his comments should be summarily reverted. At times, I've reverted all of his edits, but a few are actually helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. It's a shame that the editor doesn't choose to be more constructive. Homunculus (duihua) 23:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoping you can help

Arthur, it's a while since we communicated (several years ago, actually, on Recovered Memory Therapy). I'm having quite a bit of trouble at the article on the Indian guru Kalki Bhagavan. It is, admittedly, not a very active page and was recently AfD (keep). However, I think there are some serious underlying issues, which I have outlined recently on the article's talk page. One editor in particular seems to be preventing anything being published that varies from the line being pushed by the guru's organisation. I believe it is getting to the stage where intervention from Administrator may be called for. Hoping you can help by taking a look? Or if you're not able to get involved, perhaps you can suggest someone else who might be able to review the article. Cheers, Matt. M Stone (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

re: functional boolean algebra enumeration

1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation

primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions for correspondence with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing

elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight

no more edits percieved other than to repost

any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent use should not be posted?

if not where should it be posted?

---

further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents

the table submitted enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important

several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid

- there does not seem to be such a table in wikipedia elsewhere - such tables are a regularly used resource handout for several courses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).

See the talk page. A correct location is already posted in Talk:Boolean algebra; see Truth function#Table of binary truth functions, among other places.

And "BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))" just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq

extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f

why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"

editorial resposibility is to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong that it's "wrong". Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression

a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined

BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))

the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}

the range is {0,1,2,4,8}

instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation

(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)

for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
    for p in {0,1}
        for q in {0,1}
            print f && (2^(2*p+q))

and the output is

0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248

or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted

0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248

the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:

print "     p   F F T T" + nl
print "     q   F T F T"
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
begin
    print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)",
                  "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t"
    for p in {0,1}
        for q in {0,1}
            print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F"
end

and the output is:

     p   F F T T
     q   F T F T
False	 F F F F
NOR 	 T F F F
~(q=>p)  F T F F
~p  	 T T F F
~(p=>q)  F F T F
    	 T F T F
well	 F T T F
you 	 T T T F
get 	 F F F T
the 	 T F F T
idea	 F T F T
    	 T T F T
p   	 F F T T
q=>p     T F T T
OR  	 F T T T
true	 T T T T

Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:

javascript:
x = "     p   F F T T\n";
x+= "     q   F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
    x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p  ","~(p=>q)","    ",
                  "well","you ","get ","the ","idea","    ","p   ","q=>p","OR  ","true"][f] +"\t";
    for (p in [false,true])             /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ 
        for (q in [true,false])         /* told ya so */  
            x +=  (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F"  /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or more sensibly

javascript:
x = "     p   F F T T\n";
x+= "     q   F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
    x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p  ","~(p=>q)","    ",
                  "well","you ","get ","the ","idea","    ","p   ","q=>p","OR  ","true"][f] +"\t";
    for (p=0;p<2;p++)           
        for (q=0;q<2;q++)
            x +=  (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F"  /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);

If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:

EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...

The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function can expedite this profoundly. Freshmen do the coding above and later, implement the PLA hardware. Matriculating sophmores are expected to understand the theory behind it all.

The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevent when doing a hardware implentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.

Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).

Something like that might be appropriate in a different "Boolean algebra" article; I would suggest Boolean algebras canonically defined, except it's already there at Boolean algebras canonically defined#Truth tables, except for the confusing explicit form $f\land 2^{2p+q}$. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with recursive function theory, whichever definition of "recursive function" you care to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ... there's the rub! $f\land 2^{2p+q}$ is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete $\land$ as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!

It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunble (oops a Freudian! bumble or bundle!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering

head is swimming with where to start

The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )

This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).

First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):

The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)

informally ...
 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn
selector function on pq
((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( 
       f3 x      (n-2)x(n-1)xn    /( 1x 2x 3) +
       f2 x(n-3)      x(n-1)xn    /(-1x 1x 2) + 
       f1 x(n-3)x(n-2)      xn    /(-2x-1x 1) + 
       f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)      /(-3x-2x-1)    ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0)

ffo:  find first one
po2:  power of 2 (though a crowd is better) 
aside 15 - n + 1 will if xor'd

formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial $GS(n,k,f_{0},f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k})=\sum _{i=0}^{k}f_{i}\prod _{j=0,j\neq i}^{k}{\frac {n-j}{i-j}}$

GS(n,k,f₀,f₁,f₂,...,f_k) = ∑_{i=0 to k} f_i ∏_{j=0 to k,j≠i} (n-j)/(i-j)

BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1}
BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q)
G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1),
               GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1),
               GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1),
               GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1))

(in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet)

- the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments
- ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but  BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher
- the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined 
  using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language 
- bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if 
  modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning 
  and use for congruency

but this is "cooler":
BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false}

- this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated
  functions themselves
- this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated
  as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program
- at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions
- so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system
- the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model
  to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be
  changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds
- to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS 
  viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware)
- the BA function is shy of the mark yet
- the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the 
  p and q can be perceived as functions
- the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful

- the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine

(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )

gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)

Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.

(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)

personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long lost treatises, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives

TBC - same channel not necessarily same time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming (216.191.39.102 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

ditto 1st (99.249.36.41 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!

ditto ditto (99.249.36.41 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

The Argument Sketch

Appears to be the model for Talk:Fascism#Lead_post-RFC, alas. Is it proper for editors to snark about an IP as though he were an editor they proudly drove away? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Good fix

For fixing substandard minus signs in WP:MOSMATH. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Trimming rhetoric

I recently put a little note here but it got trimmed [[19]]. Hoping it was a mistake? M Stone (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me, and I think I fixed it. I've asked the editor in question to stay off my talk page, because what he wants to add to Boolean algebra is clearly original research, even if it were accurate and relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was not remotely related to things Boolean (as far as I know). M Stone (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

re: functional boolean algebra enumeration

1 edit corrected character representation in table for escaping vertical bar representation and some punctuation

primary necessity is to enumerate all boolean functuions to correspond with recursive function enumeration to emphasize elementary boolean operation evaluation techniques using nothing but indexing

elaboration of concept edit ie. BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p +q)) occurred in hindsight

no more edits percieved other than to repost

any reason why complete table of all 2-valued boolean operations and consequent USE should not be posted?

if not where should it be posted?

---

further to this point - the article itself refers to the truth table enumeration of the number of 1's (0's) being odd or even for the various Boolean functions but w/ no such comprehensive table being explicitly available (perhaps a link to the table would be helpful to see this), though the submitted edit provides a link to a table that does not explicitly identify the functions though itemizing the contents

the submitted table enumerates every possible boolean truth value combination on 2 boolean variables - not necessarily important in and of itself but the implications for a Godel enumeration of the same operations and the ease of this for plc implementation on low level cpu design are important

several nuances such as the fact only commutative binary functions have gates etc. become quite lucid

- there does not seem to be such an explicit, succint table in wikipedia - such tables are used regularly (there are several variations thoughout wiki's pages BUT none emphaze the isomorphism of the true false bit battern with the enueration of the boolean operators using that same bit pattern)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)).

See the talk page. A correct location is already posted in Talk:Boolean algebra; see Truth function#Table of binary truth functions, among other places.

And "BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))" just wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q)) => f bitwise AND with 2 to the power concatenated pq

extracts the pq'th bit of the binary value of f

why BA is "wrong" since no context was provided as to interpretation - which is the real issue for "wrongness"

is editorial resposibility to assist with the effort to ellucidate and present material?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong that it's "wrong". Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

no problem - abstraction is senseless however ... well ... let's execute it and see what happens if a computational environment can "make sense" of the expression

a very common language convention (prevailing here) is that 0 is false and any non-zero value is true Note: while the 0/false convention is ubiquitous, in a few environments true is associated exclusively with -1 and in a few others with 1, while any other pattern of bits either is ignored, generates an error or is undefined

BA(f,p,q) = f && (2^(2*p+q))

the domain is {0,1,2,..,15}x{0,1}x{0,1}

the range is {0,1,2,4,8}

instead of executing the BA function the primitive definition will be used directly for the calculation

(the actual exercise on {0,1,2,..,15}x{true,false}x{true,false} also includes the requirement to print appropriately the numeric function converted to its boolean logic equivalent as an infix operator between the operands, a leading unary operator or a nullary constant - not done here)

for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
    for p in {0,1}
        for q in {0,1}
            print f && (2^(2*p+q))

and the output is

0000100002001200004010400240124000081008020812080048104802481248

or for clarity spaces have been manually inserted

0000 1000 0200 1200 0040 1040 0240 1240 0008 1008 0208 1208 0048 1048 0248 1248

the complete boolean algebra logic table can therefore be calculated! and printed (transposed) as:

print "     p   F F T T" + nl
print "     q   F T F T"
for f in {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}
begin
    print nl+["False","NOR","~(q=>p)","~p","~(p=>q)",
                  "well","you","get","the","idea","","","p","q=>p","OR","true"][f] +"\t"
    for p in {0,1}
        for q in {0,1}
            print f && (2^(2*p+q)) ? " T" : " F"
end

and the output is:

     p   F F T T
     q   F T F T
False	 F F F F
NOR 	 T F F F
~(q=>p)  F T F F
~p  	 T T F F
~(p=>q)  F F T F
    	 T F T F
well	 F T T F
you 	 T T T F
get 	 F F F T
the 	 T F F T
idea	 F T F T
    	 T T F T
p   	 F F T T
q=>p     T F T T
OR  	 F T T T
true	 T T T T

Same thing in the vernacular of a more colloquial paradigm:

javascript:
x = "     p   F F T T\n";
x+= "     q   F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
    x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p  ","~(p=>q)","    ",
                  "well","you ","get ","the ","idea","    ","p   ","q=>p","OR  ","true"][f] +"\t";
    for (p in [false,true])             /* Caveat! this is a js gotcha' */ 
        for (q in [true,false])         /* told ya so */  
            x +=  (f & [1,2,4,8][2*p + 1*q]) ? " T" : " F"  /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or more sensibly

javascript:
x = "     p   F F T T\n";
x+= "     q   F T F T" ;
for (f=0;f<16;f++) {
    x += "\n"+["False","NOR ","~(q=>p)","~p  ","~(p=>q)","    ",
                  "well","you ","get ","the ","idea","    ","p   ","q=>p","OR  ","true"][f] +"\t";
    for (p=0;p<2;p++)           
        for (q=0;q<2;q++)
            x +=  (f >> (2*p + q)) % 2 ? " T" : " F"  /* the ^ is XOR in js */
}
alert(x);

If there is a less senseless programming paradigm name your poison:

EUCLID, LUCID, LOGO, LISP, BASIC, PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, SNOBOL, JAVA, HYPO, JOSS, C & derivatives, FORTH, ERLANG, PERL, PYTHON, APL, SIMULA, ALGOL, BLISS, POP-10, PROLOG, GPSS, ADA, PASCAL, ...

The table per se is not important BUT the BA function & Boolean Algebra isomorphism is. A Godel enumeration is effectively done using the BA function over a 2 valued Boolean Algebra allowing for its succinct hardware implementation. It is a standard exercise to prove the isomorphism and that the BA function IS a Boolean Algebra. Moreover, when designing a rudimentary machine with the primitive recursive functions, and the selector function in particular, necessitating rapid prototype development - the BA function enumeration concept can expedite this profoundly.

The enumeration of all 2 valued Boolean Algebra functions is NOT an idle exercise and, in the context of recursive function theory, this is very relevant when doing a hardware implimentation of that very Algebra when constructing an automaton.

Anyhow, if sensing the expression f && (2^(2*p+q)) is a problem then ... ;)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(99.249.36.41 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)).

Something like that might be appropriate in a different "Boolean algebra" article; I would suggest Boolean algebras canonically defined, except it's already there at Boolean algebras canonically defined#Truth tables, except for the confusing explicit form $f\land 2^{2p+q}$. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with recursive function theory, whichever definition of "recursive function" you care to use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ... there's the rub! $f\land 2^{2p+q}$ is <math> and f && (2^(2*p+q)) is not! (directly) - there are some SAM systems around but not sure if any of them interprete $\land$ as a bit wise conjunction on the binary expansions - for many reasons it is highly unlikely!

It is possible to coerce ... gotta' go for lunch! ... will provide a quick synopsis of how Boolean Algebra, RFT, Automata Theory, Formal Languages, ..., neatly bunbled (oops a Freudian! bumbled or bundled!) machine abstract modeling and silicon rendering

head is swimming with where to start

The lamda calculus and recursive conceptualization has to do with how any formal system is used to describe itself (realizing of course the Halting problem, Gödel incompleteness, etc. [ aside - which is why all diagnostic programs are failures! - several times profoundly failing machines run such diagnostics that incorrectly report no problem! - a badly skewed 5¼ inch disk comes to mind and the hardware techs were not amused, not by the failure of the diagnostics but by the {my} rhetorical observation of the diagnostics failure! - gotta learn how to halt soft tissue grey matter computation {reprogram it? been told I am or have the halting problem!} or at least halt the output!] )

This is the essence of how an abstraction such as the Boolean Algebra can be used to construct a computer. On a very pragmatic level this recursive approach is not necessary. On a very esoteric level the succesive refinement of computational architecture is currently a recursive symbiotic process of both silicon based and soft tissue based computation (this is how psychology and cognitive processing also becomes part of the milieu ergo the Freudian slip above - unfortunately, was not going to go here too!).

First the coercion (excuse my informalities - been a while since I've dressed up this formally - good thing this is a long weekend! hopefully this will not make it too long for yourself! - PS. as a student of law is not the output of i=0; i++ in contravention of software copyright? who or what gets sued when a legitimate program is -eventually- counterfeited? - sorry couldn't resist - right up there with ogooglebar! and RepRap):

The little game to be played below will do bit extraction with arithmetic only - and standard keyboard symbols which leaves out ceiling and floor operators (symbols too hard to type or cut & paste - will regenerate from 1st princples - can't find notes - I am really mixing my metaphors - will qualify or not)

informally ...
 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)xn
selector function on pq
((S(n,f3,f2,f1,f0)( 
       f3 x      (n-2)x(n-1)xn    /( 1x 2x 3) +
       f2 x(n-3)      x(n-1)xn    /(-1x 1x 2) + 
       f1 x(n-3)x(n-2)      xn    /(-2x-1x 1) + 
       f0 x(n-3)x(n-2)x(n-1)      /(-3x-2x-1)    ))(2*p+q))(f3,f2,f1,f0)

ffo:  find first one
po2:  power of 2 (though a crowd is better) 
aside 31 - n + 1 will if xor'd

formalities ... Generalized Selector aka Interpolating Polynomial $GS(n,k,f_{0},f_{1},f_{2},...,f_{k})=\sum _{i=0}^{k}f_{i}\prod _{j=0,j\neq i}^{k}{\frac {n-j}{i-j}}$

GS(n,k,f₀,f₁,f₂,...,f_k) = ∑_{i=0 to k} f_i ∏_{j=0 to k,j≠i} (n-j)/(i-j)

BA: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15}x{0,1}x{0,1} => {0,1}
BA(f,p,q) = G(f,2p + q)
G(f,r)=GS(f,15,GS(r,3,0,0,0,0),GS(r,3,0,0,0,1),GS(r,3,0,0,1,0),GS(r,3,0,0,1,1),
               GS(r,3,0,1,0,0),GS(r,3,0,1,0,1),GS(r,3,0,1,1,0),GS(r,3,0,1,1,1),
               GS(r,3,1,0,0,0),GS(r,3,1,0,0,1),GS(r,3,1,0,1,0),GS(r,3,1,0,1,1),
               GS(r,3,1,1,0,0),GS(r,3,1,1,0,1),GS(r,3,1,1,1,0),GS(r,3,1,1,1,1))

(in spite of the US gun control problem GS(r is not gun shot residue - yet)

- the BA function is a Boolean Algebra provided composition is restricted to the p & q arguments
- ie. BA(BA(3,0,1),0,1) is verboten (temporarily for now) but  BA(6,BA(3,0,1),BA(8,1,1)) is kosher
- the actual definition of BA is irrelevent but bit-bashing is unfortunately not succintly defined 
  using "pure" math w/o resorting to the use of a programming language 
- bit extraction with ceiling, floor and modulus is possible except that it is not clear if 
  modulus is acceptable as a remainder function independently from its conventional meaning 
  and use for congruency

but this is "cooler":
BA: {false,^,v,|,~,....,true}x{true,false}x{true,false} => {true,false}

- this last implies parametric retrieval of the boolean operators as generated
  functions themselves
- this is a further development to come where the f's themselves are generated
  as the result of functional computation ie. executing a program
- at the moment they can only be used as constant nullary functions
- so a system will be constructed that generates components of the system
- the value of a recursive function theoretic approach is that it allows for a homogenous model
  to not only construct a machine but also describe it's functioning when the f parameter will be
  changed and loaded with a new f as the computation of a program proceeds
- to be sure the f cannot change in the designed machine's hardware (well ... there are BIOS 
  viruses and some programs could actually permanently ruin hardware)
- the BA function is shy of the mark yet
- the model of the BA function now has an f that is malleable and non-distinct from data and the 
  p and q can be perceived as functions
- the use of recursive function theory here is exceptionally elementary but useful

- the target is BAmachine(program) where if program=BAmachine then BAmachine(BAmachine) = BAmachine

(aside how in the h... did I get here??? - RepRap! - self-replicating automata - bootstrapping & making my own - to construct solid geometry, regular polyhedra, pseudo's and quasi's also - throwback to childhood pending desires and the 59 Coxeter icosahedrons - design software openSCAD - ... augmented it with composite Boolean functions {why? some reason maybe just serendipity} - whimsically wiki'd Boolean logic got algebra - saw reference to use in computer construction but no specifics or ref's to Karnaugh - "List of Boolean algebra topics" does not provide info - the characterizing of a BA via RFT to do this construction seems to be missing ... will likely need to rebuild controller firmware but not at as low a level as the BA but ... )

gist of argument: low level hardware's switching theory is intimately connected to Boolean operations - recursive functions, automata, etc. provide a good high level abstraction for machine design - computability theory has a foot in both camps - the tools will create a machine model that needs to, among other things, model itself and be Turing complete (the base system need not be Gödel complete - the 6809 chip had an HCF undocumented op which would trap the cpu in a Halt & Catch Fire unresolved address calculation so the instruction would never terminate necessitating a power down if one wanted it to do something else more useful)

Boolean Algebra provides the ideal paradigm for Computability studies and Satisfiability but not so convenient for exposition of recursive functions.

(Sorry the modus operandi will give a skelton approach with a bit of fleshing out with the meat and perhaps some potatoes thrown in before getting to the real muscle of this.)

personally this is quite a refreshing and edifying experience forcing myself to reconstruct long ago practise and theory, as it's been a decade (or 3) since dealing with these primitives

TBC - same channel not necessarily same time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.36.41 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

will do this 1st - will forget again otherwise - pre-emptive grey matter conditioned programming (216.191.39.102 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

ditto 1st (99.249.36.41 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

The problem with F(x,y)=x(y,y) is we have no idea whether F will be invoked as F(F,F). I submit that F(x,y)=x(y,y) is a recursive function even if it's invocation is unknown!

Rexamining BA(f,p,q) in this context the target is something like BAx?(BAx?,...) there is a bit (well more like a KB or maybe a GB) to go yet.

(out of curiosity searching wikipedia for info on CPU chip design and construction - early hit on "machine architecture" & "computer architecture" was to ARM architecture which is the chip for the controller mentioned above for firmware programming - now there's a blast from the past Altair 8000, Z80, Acorn BBC, ... did not know A in ARM was for Acorn)

searching wiki pages to see if this topic of machine abstraction to concrete construction is explicitly documented - no luck yet (there are of course many models that will suffice)

- Turing machines etc.  ATM, DTM, NDTM, ... 
- Turing_tarpit
- Stack_machine
- Pushdown_automaton th original PDA! & its non-deterministic counterpart
- Register_machine
- Context-free_grammar
- [[]]
- Finite_automaton
- Automata-based_programming
- Abstract_state_machines <= this may be "closest" to the "target" - notes predate circa references by a decade (mid 70's) and taught the transformation into hardware via Boolean Algebra
- UML_state_machine#UML_extensions_to_the_traditional_FSM_formalism <= warm too
- Systolic array  (trellis automata)
- Sequential_logic
- Combinational_logic
- ASIC & ASIP
- FPGA & FPGA#FPGA_design_and_programming
- RISC
- Complex instruction set computing
- One_instruction_set_computer
- Zero_instruction_set_computer
- Programmable Logic Array
- Formal_semantics_of_programming_languages but applied to hardware! via Denotational_semantics & Operational_semantics
- Algebraic_semantics_(computer_science) <= ??? am curious about this
- CPU Sim
- Millicode
- Microcode
- JHDL
- P-code_machine
- Java virtual machine
- Tiny_Internet_Interface Tini!
- 1-bit_architecture
- [[]]
- [[]]
- [[]]

ditto ditto (99.249.36.41 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)).

TBC, same channel, ... signature ditto recursed

(209.112.38.254 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)).

This is somewhat interesting, but not possibly of relevance to any Wikipedia article. And I've asked the anon not to reply further on this talk page, because he/she has damaged others' comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to you 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 do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "85 (number)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:141.218.36.46

Arthur, could you please look at the block of the above user and make sure I did the right thing? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so. He exhibits a willingness to talk, which is unusual for that person, but not unheard of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The only times he's ever "talked" these last 12 months it has been to draw the foil by playing dumb, and once to scold me to "think larger". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Inline math equations

I'm not trying to start an argument, and I recognize your valued contributions to WP (which are more knowledgeable than mine), but my edits to Algebraic number are no different than many other edits I and other editors have made to make inline mathematical equations and the like within articles more readable. Perhaps it's a matter of taste on my part, but I find it more difficult and distracting to read inline LaTEX text than its HTML equivalent. Note that I'm not questioning the misuse of {{frac}} in math articles, as I was not aware of the policy until now. I am, however, at a loss to understand why my particular changes are not acceptable, whereas the same type of changes made on many other pages by many other editors are. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not you, in particular. I'm not "stalking" you, but I generally prefer LaTEX to (complex) HTML as being easier to maintain and to understand while editing, even if sometimes not as "pretty". MOS:MATH is silent on the issue of when you should use HTML v. LaTEX whether the difference between HTML and LaTEX should be handled similarly to WP:ENGVAR, or whether it's open season on changes, or some other guideline is in effect. I would like to add that, regardless of whether you prefer HTML or LaTEX display, mixing them in inline expressions looks really bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

An ANI mention

Howdy. You are mentioned at Wikipedia:ANI#Interim_remedy_requested.--Rockfang (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That action seems, moreover, to validate Arthur's comments. :) Collect (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

request

Please take a look at Shepherd Smith [20] and its talk page [21],

WP:BLP/N about the same biography [22], [23] etc. ,

and the edit history of Outing [24]

and Outrage (2009 film) [25] (in each case multiple reversions to include material removed as being contrary to WP:BLP and under discussion at WP:BLP/N currently, and where the clear consensus is "Heck No!") as I think some very major violations of WP:BLP are being made and deliberately iterated (that is, to have Wikipedia in multiple articles state that Shepard Smith has been outed as gay.

For some idiotic reason I had thought that using allegations abut a living person's sexuality requires very strong sourcing but apparently if a filmmaker says "Y is gay" than it is proper for Wikipedia to so state as an allegation in their biography? Note: there is no claim by anyone that this is a "notable aspect" of Shepard Smith. Many thanks. Collect (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The "idiotic" reason quoted by Collect is probably taken from a too-broad misinterpretation of WP:BLPCAT which applies only to categories and other absolute statements. Rather than absolutes, I am merely saying that various media sources have said that Shepard Smith is gay. I am not saying that he is gay, though the reaction here is much as if this were the case. Yet nobody denies the fact that various media sources have indeed been commenting on Smith's alleged homosexuality since 2005 with a huge bump in mid-2009 because of the film Outrage. See the film article Outrage (2009 film) to see the wide variety of news reports from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Observer, Variety magazine, Rolling Stone magazine, etc. This is major stuff, this sort of outing behavior. Many of these major news articles name just a portion of the people who are pictured in the film; the ones that name Smith are the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Houston Voice, the Houston Press, the Daily Kos, noted gay blogger Andy Towle, noted gay blogger David Shankbone (who used to have an article on Wikipedia), the New York Daily News, the LA Weekly, the New York Press and Out magazine. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I.e. if a film accused Y of being a Gnarphist, and a reviewer (not in a news report) said "the filmmaker made a claim that Y is a Gnarphist (where one posits that this is a "contnetious claim"), but the filmnaker was (exact quote) "... But Dick doesn't pretend to be objective" I consider the reviewer has not given any reason for Wikipedia to say that Y has been alleged to be a Gnarphist at all. In short - my position has always been (on the hundreds of BLPs I have edited covering the gamut of people) that "contnetious claims" require strong sources, and that allegations make for very bad BLPs, and if they are not strongly sourced, they do not belong on any BLPs. Also note that almost none of the reviwers iterated the charges, by the way. It is disingenuous to say that if a film is reviewed, that its claims are therefore fact. Find genuine reliable sources which make definitive statements, or find a self-identification for a person being gay, or Jewish, or any other ethnic or sexual group whatever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you are very consistent with your interpretation of BLP, over a long time frame. I hold that your understanding of the entire BLP guideline comes from a too-broad interpretation of BLPCAT which is rightly very limiting. I have never, ever seen you cite the WELLKNOWN section to argue for inclusion—no, you are quite consistently a deletionist in BLP matters. It is as if you have made up your mind about what Wikipedia should host in biographies of living persons, following which you have fastened upon the portion of BLP most like your personal stance. Yet WP:WELLKNOWN is a valid part of the BLP guideline. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And you have consistently supported adding allegations and contentious claims to BLPs -- I think Arthur is able as a mathematician to weigh the probative values of each position per WP policies at this point. The clear consensus at BLP/N, however, seems not to accept your intriguing view of biographies of living persons. Collect (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I argue each BLPN case on its merits, not with a predetermined template.

At the following discussions, I argued for less text: Cameron Newton, John Lurie, John Lurie again, Gilad Atzmon, Michael Palin, Anne Bremner, Bruce Cockburn, J. Hutton Pulitzer, Amy Goodman, Jane Fonda, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Julianne Moore, Moshe Friedman, husband Hasan/wife Rose, Liev Schreiber, Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling. Sure, I have argued for inclusion on many other biographies, but I just wanted to correct your notion that I consistently go with inclusionist arguments. I look at the evidence and then form my opinion as to the best way forward. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arthur

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In what way would this be superior to or more useful than existing economic reports?

Where do you get your statistics? From the country's own government data?

How can you make sure that the figures are comparable between countries? JRSpriggs (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This project would be superior because I have never seen a report breakdown every country's gdp by state, gdp by industry, employment by industry, fiscal budget, central bank balance sheet, biggest companies and biggest banks all on one page. These statistics are very revealing of the true nature of an economy. They are easy to understand.

Statistics come from country's government data. It's sometimes hard to find the data but that's the whole mission of the project is to consolidate all that important information into one spot.

I think all sections would be comparable due to the standardized format, which section are you talking about specifically?Mcnabber091 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Even within the United States, there have been complaints that economic data are not defined consistently over time (from one administration to the next). How does one adjust GDP for differences in the prices of goods and services?: prices change over time, prices are different in different places, the quality of the goods or services may vary, which exchange rate should be used, surveying methods for gathering and aggregating data vary, etc.? How do you measure employment?: how many hours does a worker have to work to be considered employed, if he has multiple jobs do you count each one separately, what about the 'underground economy', how do you define the sectors (industries) of the economy for purposes of sorting workers, etc.? What about erroneous economic data due to either incompetence or politically motivated fraud (since politicians often pressure bureaucrats to change the results to create a more favorable appearance)? For more information, see shadow statistics. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes people should take the data with a grain of salt. But it will be the best possible collection of available data in one place.Mcnabber091 (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Revert of edits on Virtual Reality by Mark Koltko-Rivera

May I ask why my edits were reverted on the Virtual Reality entry? Mark Koltko-Rivera (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No evidence that the source is reliable. "Impact" described there is minor, at best; if it were reliable, it should be toward the end of the "Impact" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

MKR: Could you tell me more about what you would consider evidence that this source is reliable? The term "reliable" can be taken different ways. Mark Koltko-Rivera (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, Arthur Rubin! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

hi, Mr. Rubin

i think ull have to forgive my slang: bcz in my country there some policy abt the teachs that the English is mostly for the VIPs (at least it was in the 80s when i was i highschool, im not such good plain english speaker... ok u help me with some compression data formula. please consider the followings here

we got a bin string: first well make it base three string , it will have abt 3/5*N , n number of bits of given bin string digits... in tipical worst case we got equal probabilities 4 each digit: we mark aiding 3/5 bits one (the most frequent ) digit... the rest of the string which is more like a 2/5 bits binary string will convert it again to base 3 n repeat the rutine untill we'll get a totally lenght of N bits but with the mention that probability of "1" binary digit is 2/3 (or 1/3) making possible, aiding ur formula, a 92% data compression.... Respect, Florin , Romania 93.118.212.93 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer you write in your native language, and paste a Google translate string. However, repeated "compression" never works because the first compression should produce close to a random string. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

thank You 4 answering to me, Sir, what i meant is some repeated routine (on practically different datas) and only one compression of all 1:2 probability of digits resulted string to b compressed. im not sure its working, anyway :) 93.118.212.93 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Do you really advocate exclusion of the Boston marathon bombings from the 2013 timeline? Bearian (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at the present time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I closed the ANI thread

I closed the ANI thread I opened about Alan but I would like to thank you for that great idea. Did you want to inquire more about that or would you like me too? It would probably be better and stand a chance of success coming from you. No one really cares what I have to say. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to ask. "We" (Wikipedia) would have to both devise the filter, and agree to put it in place. I'd support agreeing to put it in place if it were properly devised, but I don't know if it can be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I could write it but I would need to look at a couple to get the coding right and I don't have access to see them so you should probably just ask at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter and see what they say. It shouldn't be hard to say editor = Alan liefting and namespace equals non mainspace and is category related. Its probably not possible to make it 100% and might even catch some false positives but at least he'll be allowed to edit. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I endorse what Kumioko said (except for your sentence about no one caring about what you have to say Kumioko – it's the rule-based editors and power-trippers who don't care for what you have to say – and if they agreed with you, how would you feel then?) It would be worthwhile, even if it took some time, to develop a generic system for targeting defined edit spaces. Then it could be used for topic bans and all sorts of other restrictions, and hugely reduce unnecessary dramah.--Epipelagic (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree but then ANI would be a lonely place! Where would all the trolls go? :-) Just kidding, no need to beat me. Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Topic bans are tricky; they not only ban edits of articles on the topic (doable with a filter), but of discussion of the topic on articles which shouldn't be in the topic; and the list of blocked words should be restricted-access, per WP:BEANS. A filter should also probably be reserved for editors who wouldn't try to get around the restriction. I'll support a filter for Alan, but necessarily a general solution.

We don't allow filters to block the editor, which would probably be necessary to even reduce the WP:BOOMERANG drama on ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression some admins favour ill defined restrictions, since Sandstein and others block editors on the grounds that "broadly construed" they transgressed against the restriction. That's a cruel position to place editors in, knowing that inevitably, somewhere, they must stumble up against the vague "broadly construed" problem. A powerful filtering system that has the flexibility, but of course requires admins to specify precisely what is to be restricted, would put an end to that unhealthy nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger Pope & Partners

HM The Queen wearing specs from Roger Pope & Partners.

Hi,

Can you please undelete this. Clearly not in a million years a speedy delete. It is a high class London opticians, opticians to HM The Queen and has a Royal Warrant. I suspect that the nomination was made in bad faith as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no claim of notability in the article. If you want to create an article which has such a claim, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is also conspicuously absent from List of Royal Warrant holders of the British Royal Family, so I would like to see a source for the claim of a Royal Warrant. That is not required to protect it from a further CSD, but it would be grounds for deletion if no source is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then the other article is incomplete... For sources see [26] and [27] [28] [29]. Some of the sources are from the company themselves, however they are not inconsistent with the other sources, and it's not the sort of thing one would get away with lying about; I think Trading Standards would look very dimly on claiming a Royal Warrant when one didn't have one, and it's against the law to do so (Merchandise Marks Act 1887). I'm pretty sure the original article, which I did not write, did contain this claim, btw, so please undelete it on behalf of whoever did. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I missed the Royal Warrant when I deleted it. Restored now. You should note that the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 doesn't apply to Wikipedia, but I'm sure a published statement by the Queen would be sufficient grounds for removal of an incorrect claim of a Warrant, even if a reliable source reported it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you undelete the talk page as well? I understand that the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 only applies to a British company claiming to have a Royal Warrant, and Wikipedia is neither British nor does it claim to have a Royal Warrant. However, it does apply to Roger Pope & Partners who have made such a claim on their website, and in light of that, the information does seem to be reliable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Created a new section as suggested

Hi,

I created a new section at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter about my questions, as per your suggessions, since mine was more of general discussion.

Other than very few articles and some technical querries,usually I do not participate in english wikipedia discussions.So I had no clue about discussion about restrictions on user Alan.

By the way,(I know we can not engineer every aspect of human life) , but still,if you keep problem of technical feasibility aside for a while and think, about "technological solution for sociological issue" , are you sure,criticizing technological solutions altogether, is not a logical fallacy and self contradictory; Whether blocking a user is not "technological solution for sociological issue" ? Is not maximum portion in concept and usage of abuse filter/edit filter in itself a "technological solution for sociological issue" ?

I am interested in discussing with you,and have your openion on some technical solutions and enhancement bugs ,if you do not mind .

Mean while any support in upgrading the article Legal awareness is also welcome.

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Anti-immigration"

Arthur, I respectfully request that you change your "vote" in the survey. After reading your remarks, I think perhaps I didn't make my proposal clear. Per WP:WEIGHT, "TPm is anti-immigration" is a minority opinion. Putting it in the "agenda" section at the start of the article, particularly when using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact, gives it far too much weight. This pretends that it's the majority opinion.

In the course of the discussion, I've been proposing that it should be mentioned nearer the end of the article, in the section discussing allegations of racism. I would also carefully attribute this claim to the handful of persons who are making it, such as Matt Barreto, rather than using Wikipedia's voice to state it as a fact. I think this is also consistent with what you're saying, although from your "vote" you seem to want to keep it right where it was in the "agenda" section, stating it as a fact. If you agree that it should be moved farther down in the article, under the conditions I've described, please change your vote to Oppose, indicating that you oppose use of the term "anti-immigration" in the "agenda" section. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

...and if you'd like to contribute to the development of WP:CONSENSUS, you should also supply clear reasoning for your position, as well as proper substantiation. Otherwise, it's just another word in bold print equating to "me too", and doesn't serve any purpose. That's why many of us presently in the discussion don't even bother with inserting a meaningless "support" or "oppose" word in a list; it's the reasoned discussion and addressing of concerns that determines consensus. Which brings me to a point of contention: P&W, could you explain to everyone what you base your assertion that "TPm is anti-immigration is a minority opinion" on? Did you read that in reliable sources somewhere? Did you just make it up? Did you mean it's an opinion that only "minorities" hold? Did you base it on doing Google searches on words or phrases, then compare numeric counts? It would be great to know what prompts you to make such a statement, as it seems to be the foundation of many of your arguments. If you have an answer, could you post it on the article Talk page, for all to see? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• However, certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote, so I have to rewrite it to something they might not be able to misconstrue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that comment of yours. Would you mind pointing out that unacceptable behavior? I'd like to look into it and see if I can convince them to knock it off. We don't need another ArbCom mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Arthur. I have just edited a comment of yours to remove a personal attack. You accused me of TE behavior and "intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments" without clearly showing where. I've examined the whole page, twice, and see nothing close to what you have described. I'll assume it was another mistake. You can, of course, revert my edit if you feel it is necessary, and I'll pursue the matter in a more formal venue. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious to all that Malke (1) originally had a "thinko" where she wrote "anti-immigration" and meant anti-illegal-immigration, someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter), and you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change and (2) It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration", and feels the latter is misleading (although only P&W thinks that it means "racist" and a WP:BLP violation). You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading. If you were to recognize that it can be misleading, we could have a reasonable discussion as to whether it is misleading; but you do not do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, Xenophrenic's talk page behavior needs to be brought up on the ArbCom talk page. Newyorkbrad said if we had other workshop type comments to post them on the talk page. The redaction/reverting of editors' comments, the never ending tendentious arguments, and the incivility needs to be addressed. I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been able to find (although, I admit, I hadn't looked that hard, also being involved in searching for employment) evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't looked that hard either. But I will say the vigor he currently displays in pursuing his quest for anti-immigration/nativism, and the incivility, all apparently without regard to consequences, needs to be addressed. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think North mentioned TE. Maybe he knows where examples might be found. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, under the circumstances, if you think action is appropriate regarding the conduct of a particular editor, may I suggest the motions process? An arbitrator may propose a motion for an immediate vote by all arbitrators, "if the case is straightforward enough." Present your evidence to SilkTork, since he has taken an interest in the case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

X is not named as a party in the RfAr, and fairness would suggest that if he were added there at this late date, he should be able to submit evidence before sanctions are imposed. Of course, if the RfAr results in conditions applicable to all editors, those conditions would, of course, apply to X. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I see several problems with what you have stated above. I'll be frank and simply tell you straight away that I don't believe for a moment that you are simply mistaken or misunderstanding at this point. You have exhausted what little remaining good faith I maintained in you, and now I'm fairly certain that you are willfully misrepresenting the situation, and intentionally distorting the truth. Others may not readily see it, so I'll provide the following clarifications:

• It should be obvious to anyone reading what Malke wrote that she distinguishs "anti-illegal-immigration" from "anti-immigration"...

That would be a reasonable assumption under any other circumstance than this one. Had you been following the beginning of that discussion, however, you would have noticed that Malke had asked, "Who is doing this? Where's the RS that shows rallies, and protests, and marches against illegal immigration by the 'tea party.'" That's right, Arthur, while everyone else on the page was debating whether or not the TP movement was anti-immigration, Malke was arguing that the TP movement wasn't anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. Surely Malke must have "had a thinko" (new term for me, forgive me if I'm not using it right) and really meant to say "anti-immigration", right? No. She was demanding that I source the fact that TPers protest against illegal immigration. Even Arzel expressed confusion over Malke's stance, until I assured him she really did ask me for sources showing protests against "illegal" immigration. Arzel's response. Even North8000 was confused over Malke's use of the "anti-illegal-immigration" phrase, saying, "The above seems to keep jumping off on tangents. People keep discussing TPM actions against illegal immigration...". I set him straight, saying, "No, North, you heard her right. It's not a tangent, and there's been no false inference; it's a completely separate argument going on here." Malke confirmed that she was indeed intentionally talking about illegal immigration, not anti-immigration, saying, "I'm not saying you can't mention anti-illegal immigration. I'm challenging the RS that you presented earlier. And I've made very clear what problems I saw with each one of those sources." So Arthur, when everyone was arguing over the "anti-immigration" phrase, Malke was arguing over "anti-ILLEGAL-immigration", and insisting that I provide better sources to prove that TPers protested, marched and rallied against it. It was confusing to me, and to Arzel, and to North8000 that she was arguing over one term rather than the other, but I learned not to question her. When she later in that same discussion thread said "anti-immigration" when she really meant "anti-illegal-immigration", you claim it should have been "obvious to anyone reading" what she meant? Oh, hell no -- don't even try to pull that, Arthur. Apparently Malke talks about what she talks about, and assuming it's "obvious to all" when she makes a mistatement, well, nothing could be further from the truth.

• someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter)

No, Arthur. No one reverted her correction. I've checked every singe edit, twice. That's more bullshit, and I'm fairly certain you knew it was bullshit when you spouted it. I find that's pretty much true of most of the comments you make that are not accompanied by diffs. But your plan worked, Malke took your bait and chimed in with "I didn't know Xenophrenic had reverted my comment, if so, I'll add that in, too." Well done.

• you refuse to acknowledge that it was a correction rather than a change

More bullshit. Have you even looked at the exchange? Oh wait ... that's right, you've been too busy to bother to look at that upon which you comment. I knew Malke had simply made a mistake, or a "thinko" as you say, and I even stated so: "You've mixed the terms up again." But she denied getting the terms mixed up, saying, "No I haven't mixed up anything. I meant to say anti-illegal immigration." And sure enough, there were her words: "anti-illegal-immigration" ... so I must have misread them the first time, I figured. But then I checked her edit. She had slipped in the word "illegal", without updating the time stamp, without noting that she had edited a comment to which I had already replied, and she denied she had made a mixup.

• You are refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and that the latter, although technically correct, can be misleading.

More bullshit. Since you don't have the time to actually read the discussions, and therefore have no real clue about my positions regarding anti-immigration and anti-illegal-immigration, allow me to quote from some of my own statements from the Talk page:

The difference? "legal immigration" is the process of becoming a legally recognized and lawfully recorded resident, whereas "anti-immigration" is opposition sentiment toward aspects of the movement of non-native people into a country. I have not referred to anti-immigration as being anti-legal-immigration; you are mistaken. I have noted, however, that opposition to legal immigration and opposition to illegal immigration are both under the umbrella of "anti-immigration". re: Britannica; of course it's not the only source. There are several more with it at the end of that sentence, and many more have been raised here on this Talk page during this discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I know very well the difference between "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration", and your assertion to the contrary is designed to intentionally mislead. I have never said they are the same. As for the latter being "misleading", where have I commented on that at all? (oh yeah, you don't do diffs, so I guess it will remain an eternal mystery.) You are the only person to assert that it is misleading. Anything is open for discussion, Arthur, and for you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

• I hadn't been able to find ... evidence of X's tendentious editing. Until now.

And yet you still are unable to provide diffs. That is very telling. You haven't indicated tendentious editing in your comment above. I pointed out that Malke had mixed up her terminology, and she publicly denied it, but knowing that she actually had, she corrected her mixup by editing an old comment without indicating her change. I civilly asked her to refrain from doing that, and cited the relevant policy. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's routine discourse between editors. I've expressed disagreement with certain opinions, and you misrepresent that as failing to "acknowledge" or "recognize" something -- again without evidence. That's not tendentious editing, Arthur, that's you manufacturing baseless personal attacks upon an editor with whom you disagree, rather than discussing and working through your disagreements.

What does it say about you and your motivations when you have to actually "search" for evidence of tendentious editing, or ask other editors like North hoping that maybe they can provide you with something to manufacture a case against someone? Think about it. When KillerChihuahua fell ill and was hospitalized, I started compiling evidence for ArbCom in case she wasn't able to handle the matter, but fortunately she was back online very quickly. Yet, in that short time, I was able to compile 11.5 typed pages of diffs of egregeous behavior -- serious stuff warranting sanctions, not hand-wavey vague accusations that don't amount to much -- without even trying. I didn't have to struggle to find something, anything, to try to build a case ... it all jumped out at me, and I could barely type it up fast enough. There's a clue there. But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. It's why I don't rush to the boards when I see editors flagrantly breaking rules (like Arzel reverting the word "generally" out of the article twice [30][31] in 13 hours - a slam dunk block). Unfortunately, since I see you have left your unsubstantiated personal attack on the article Talk page, I'm forced to take this to an administrator's board. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You left a personal attack on the article Talk page, without substantiation. I've asked you to retract it. It's still there. I've expressed my concerns at ANI. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you say you compiled 11.5 pages of diffs that show 'egregeous' behavior? Where is it? Why not post it on the ArbCom workshop talk page? Not all 11.5 pages, of course, just the really 'egregeous' stuff. And feel free to post egregious stuff, too, if you have it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Xen, one more thing. Your version of the exchange regarding anti-immigration/illegal immigration. That doesn't really match up with the comments you made afterwards. Arthur is correct. Your new version is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Arthur's assessment is incorrect. I note that you, like Arthur, do not accompany your faulty assertions with diffs. Is there a reason for that, outside of the obvious one? Arthur calls the phrase "anti-immigration" misleading. P&W and North call it "deceptive". You haven't used either of those terms, but I assume you feel likewise. Arthur's assertion that I am "refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration"" is opposite from the truth. Arthur's assertion that we can't discuss if "anti-immigration" is a misleading term because I am "refusing to acknowledge" that "it can be misleading" is false. I've already discussed that it may be "less specific", and I've provided links to sources discussing that very terminology. Will you be providing the substantiation that Arthur Rubin cannot? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, redact your own comments to match mine. Do not redact/move my comments again. I meant for my comments to be in the order I wrote them. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I never changed the order of your comments, Malke. I responded to each of your comments per normal Talk page editing convention. Please see: WP:Indentation and Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Perhaps you misread? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

(Copying comments and responses from above for readability. --Xenophrenic)

Xenophrenic,you say you compiled 11.5 pages of diffs that show 'egregeous' behavior? Where is it? Why not post it on the ArbCom workshop talk page? Not all 11.5 pages, of course, just the really 'egregeous' stuff. And feel free to post egregious stuff, too, if you have it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said above. You apparent missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for the 11.5 pages of 'egregeous' stuff to get posted at ArbCom. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And Xen, you didn't go to ArbCom because you don't want them looking at you. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, Malke. I'm mentioned there on all of the case pages, and the associated Talk pages. At least 62 times. You apparently are unfamiliar with ArbCom; they are indeed looking at me. I explained above why I am not actively participating, apparently you missed it: But I'm a solutions guy, not a sanctions guy, which is why I haven't commented at the ArbCom case, and declined to participate while its focus was on sanctioning editors rather than implementing a plan for article improvement. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't comment at ArbCom because you don't want to be included in sanctions. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Xen, one more thing. Your version of the exchange regarding anti-immigration/illegal immigration. That doesn't really match up with the comments you made afterwards. Arthur is correct. Your new version is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Arthur's assessment is incorrect. I note that you, like Arthur, do not accompany your faulty assertions with diffs. Is there a reason for that, outside of the obvious one? Arthur calls the phrase "anti-immigration" misleading. P&W and North call it "deceptive". You haven't used either of those terms, but I assume you feel likewise. Arthur's assertion that I am "refusing to acknowledge that there is a difference between saying "anti-illegal-immigration" and "anti-immigration"" is opposite from the truth. Arthur's assertion that we can't discuss if "anti-immigration" is a misleading term because I am "refusing to acknowledge" that "it can be misleading" is false. I've already discussed that it may be "less specific", and I've provided links to sources discussing that very terminology. Will you be providing the substantiation that Arthur Rubin cannot? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Arthur's assessment is dead on. Diffs can be found at ArbCom workshop under "Xenophrenic." You've taken these 'issues' to the article talk page where you edit warred. You've been here where you've edit warred. You then went to ANI, and now you've edit warred on your own talk page, where this discussion really belongs. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

MC pictures revert

ok lets say i accept this (thou i do not since all the editors were just fine till MC made this sudden change) then MC should pull one name at a time backwards (not wholesale changes deemed only by him) so we other editors can vote on each incremental removal - to remove 6 names or even 2 at a time is capricious and adds the complexity of a network solution set needing to be arrived at which is not likely to make any editor happy--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

in mathametics the axiom is "all things being equal" meaning to arrive at a solution set you hold one variable changable at each step - no mathematician would change 6 variables at one time and expect to ever arrive at the solution set - namely pull a name and see how each loss is met by all the editors after a couple of days - not pull a whole bunch arbitrarily chosen by one "Superman" editor--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

74.50.143.10 vandal

74.50.143.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) i have noticed that this editor is a vandal--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection, there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Venn diagrams

What other logical relations?

These don't apply to a declaration of "all logical relationships", when talking about Venn Diagrams.

http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALogicalRelation.htm

"A logical relation is an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to another, in reasoning, as

   a premise to a conclusion, or
   an antecedent to a consequent."

There are very many different types of logical relationships, and an unqualified "all" is incorrect. That's why I specified set membership,as that is the only logical relationship that is displayed by a Venn diagram

Thank you. Madsci_guy Madsci guy (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is even less coherent than your previous comment, even though quoting a "glossary". And I ask you to name a "logical relation" which is not related to what you call "set membership", we'll see modifications need to be made in the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

B. L. S. Prakasa Rao‎

Please take a look on the new article I created. He was supervised by your father. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Brickstarter

Hey, I don't feel super strongly about which stub tag we use for that article, but I think it's always better to pick one and not clutter a tiny stub. Thoughts? Steven Walling • talk 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It looked to me as if you removed all the stub tags. It seems I was mistaken. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Have a nice day, Steven Walling • talk 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Re: Zeitgeist: The Movie Thank you for pointing out lead sentences should reflect the content of the article. It makes sense. Nevertheless, I am removing "conspiracy-theory based ideas" from the lead sentence because it's a buzzword with negative connotations, and although some of the article content relies on the spurious opinions of the peanut gallery (whom are apt indeed to slam alternative perspectives as "conspiracy theories"), I am wont to provide an introduction that doesn't reflect those opinions.

So, I hope your reasoning is a little bit stronger than it appears at its face: it is true, introductions should reflect the article's content, but Wikipedia articles are not exercises in academic writing. I am willing to go out on a limb and purport most visitors (taking neither you nor I as representative) read only the introduction. In psychology, we know that readers are influenced by what they read first and last (primacy and recency, or something to that effect). Extending this reasoning further, it seems unfair to use semantically-loaded phrases early (or at all) within an introduction; in fact, it looks outstandingly non-encyclopedic. It also disadvantages the entire subject (The Zeitgeist Movie), if we assume most visitors read the introduction only, and that these visitors are sensitive to the meanings and insinuations of "conspiracy theory."

There is plenty of chance within the article to describe what critics and skeptics have said. The makers of the film would not want their film characterised by the prevailing viewpoint of armchair critics, even though those opinions are bound to appear somewhere in the article. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is conspiracy-based, and that is the consensus of all reliable sources (excluding the filmakers themselves). That seems to me, and those sources I've read, to be the thread which runs through the three, independent, conspiracies proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for issuing me a warning, and for sparing the other party, as though I was involved in an edit war with myself. Your actions as an administrator appear to be influenced by whose point of view you support. Why invoke some policy or another when you are clearly not disinterested? I suppose it is but one of the perks of being an administrator: being accountable to no-one. On the issue of reliable sources, it occurs to me you're more inclined to send me to policy pages than elucidate, in your terms, what a reliable source actually is in this case. Given that we are talking about a film, not the atomic masses of particles or the area of Arizona, it seems to me this translates into some vague kind of acceptance that newspaper articles (in other words, opinions) can be cited as sources of truth. The first problem with this approach is, opinions are like anuses: everybody has one. The second problem is that opinions have their place, that place being anywhere BUT the topical sentences of the article, which is where the facts should be. The film's content might be related to matters which are subject to a great many conspiracy theories, it might even have attracted critics who (wrongly) suggest the film advances conspiracy theories, but that doesn't qualify the film for being mentioned in the same introductory sentence as that term.

Have you done everything in your power to be impartial? I doubt it. Xabian40409 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any adminstrative action in regard you or the article, but the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and in the body of the article, is that the movie is conspiricist. If you can find sources, not themselves conspiricist, which say otherwise, you can make (or better yet, propose) changes to the body, and then to the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We (as Wikipedians) don't care what the makers of the film would want, we care what reliable sources say about the film. The makers' comments are allowable to some extent, per WP:SELFPUB, but they have to not be unduly self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops - my mistakee

Thank you for reverting my unfortunate typo "th eory". However, I meant the other edit. Thierry Le Provost (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite.

τ

The consensus for τ is keep —— ¡not delete!

76.103.108.158 (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The consensus was merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. Tkuvho (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Hello, I'm 174.56.57.138. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Linden, New South Wales because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

6 (number)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 6 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Since you refuse to use the talk page, see this thread. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Linden, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

About your removal of my addition to Koch's page

Hi Arthur,

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia pages editing but I thought Helge von Koch was missing here. I now can see he is listed in the "Koch (surname)" page. I guess here are only some of the most famous Koch. Am I right? Or can you tell me why some are here and not others?

Regards, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.74.122 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was reasonable, but I reverted it in order to revert the previous edit, which removed Helge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: Mathematics & statistics topics

Greetings, Arthur. I hope you're doing well. I recently got involved in updating the Vital Articles lists project. The Vital Articles/Expanded list is supposed to have a limit of 10,000 articles, but it is currently 300+ topics over that limit because of ad hoc additions since the list was originally compiled four or five years ago. Accordingly, one of the first priorities of the update is to remove 300+ lower-priority topics from the VA/E list. I have a pretty strong background in economics, politics, history, literature, pop culture, sports, arts, etc., and I consider myself a well-read generalist. However, notwithstanding my two years in a graduate economics program prior to law school, my educational background is really insufficient to be making priority keep/remove decisions on mathematics-related topics. I remembered your academic background, and thought I might invite you to be our resident expert for purposes of reviewing those VA/E sublists that are math-related. Do you have time to review the list and let us know which lower-priority should be removed? Also, do you know several hard science guys on Wikipedia who could review the chemistry and physics-related topics for us?

Here are links to the VA/E main page and the VA/E Mathematics sublist.

I hope you can help -- please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Water conflict

It looks like I made a mistake by thinking I had made a mistake (undoing my revert)! I did not know that there was a sockpuppet at work here. (I did check at least one or two links and they appeared to lead to actual articles.) In any event, I am glad you became aware of this and were able to straighten it out. Donner60 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "that no one with a basic knowledge of English could unintentionally misinterpret the statement, so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page.

I note, on looking over your contributions to the discussion page, that you comment more on the contributors than you do on the content. Though I want as many people as possible to get involved in the discussion, I would rather people stayed away if their only or main contributions are to be personal comments which undermine the process. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movement

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.

• so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page ... I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
• I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Malke could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
• This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Malke's page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated. The problem is that Xeno has violated the guidelines we agreed to on the moderated talk page, by construing comments about specific edits as personal attacks, and by lying about what I said. If SilkTork isn't willing to redact Xeno's comments, then we're back where we started without a "moderated" talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is complicated in that regard, but the situation isn't going to get any better if we do nothing. If Phoenix and Winslow will open the RfC/U, I will certify it. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [32] Please certify it and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandal IP

You think those were "good faith edits"..? Can't say I agree. Anyway, I guess the IP has exhausted AGF with this and this. Note the edit summaries.. lol. I think this is a user with an account. Therefore I have blocked the IP for 48 hours (it's static) with the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box ticked, too. I hope that doesn't cause collateral damage. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013‎

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for deletion of all the https Frze (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Early May 19 conduct

Hello. In last few hours I made following alarming observations:

1. Your use of WP:Rollback feature in edit warring, without even an attempt to explain it at its talk page
2. Your posting contained words contrary to the specified format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Number[sic] at WP: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Arthur Rubin, although you had about two hours to fix the own red-link mistake
3. Your unsigned posting

A user who edits Wikipedia in such way inflicts more damage than merit. If nowadays you are unwilling to spend an appropriate amount of your attention to Wikipedia, especially to edits involving extended privileges, then I advice you to take a wikibreak or restrict your activity to uncontroversial edits only. If you opted to continue the current course, then I will certainly support stripping your privileges on the first occasion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't know you and I apologize for interjecting on your talk page, but I just had a similar, recent dealing with Incnis, who I'd never crossed paths with before; in fact, I'd never even seen his name. Anyway, this warning is outrageous and uncivil, similar to this one that Incnis posted on my talk page. Warning Arthur for a typo and forgetting to sign his post? And then telling him to take a wikibreak and threatening him? Seriously? Shall we discuss your mistypes or poor English, Incnis, such as "to fix the own red-link mistake" and "I advice you"? As I pointed out on my talk page, Incnis' history shows an ongoing pattern of being rude and otherwise inappropriate with numerous editors. And it really needs to stop. So, Incnis, I'd encourage you to focus on improving your own shortcomings instead of continually going out of your way to initiate problems with other editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

I may have been in error on Linden, New South Wales, although the IP still hasn't given a reason for his removal of the coordinates template, either on the talk page, in an edit summary, or on his or my talk page.

As for the numbers, the IP has not given an accurate reason for making the changes in the first place, nor has he made an accurate reason for the change in the dozen or so talk pages he has commented on, of the 35+ pages he's edited. (He claimed to be setting a consistent appearance for primes, but he changed a majority of the relevant pages.) Your complaint that I didn't fix the WikiProject location error in 2 hours has some justification, but I had to take care of my wife, and I didn't see the edit conflict report (apparently, without an actual edit conflict) until I got back. I suggested previously he get consensus in a central location before making the changes, but he hasn't yet done so. I finally brought the matter up today; I suggest that the status quo be retained until a consensus can be determined.

Sometimes I fail to make a signature; if I'm actively editing at the time, I often get back to it before the autosigner does.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into this issue myself. Rubin, didn't you notice that each of your reverts here was creating an error message at the bottom of the page? Why were you carrying on an edit war without getting some background first? Even I noticed the error message. Incnis was right here, and you were wrong. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Civil Nuclear Constabulary 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note from Arthur

Arthur's having problems with his ISP and wanted me to post his apologies for any editing errors he's made as a result. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I went down the list you gave me and the problems have been fixed. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are a number of URLs still damaged, but thank you, Malke, for trying. (As long is there isn't an actual http in the section, my text shouldn't be mangled.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have control again; after changing DNS servers and then flushing the DNS cache. Sorry about all the problems; I think all the errors have been reverted, and all the edits I intended to make have been made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Arthur. Sorry I didn't catch those URLs. I looked in on the pages and as soon as I saw someone had "reverted Arthur Rubin" I checked it off on the list. Should have been more thorough. Also, Arthur regarding this [33]. Has the editor with the sock been blocked? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The specific sock (141.) was not blocked, as there is no sign it is semi-stable, and it had stopped editing long before I noticed it. It's obviously the same person, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at WT:ACCESS.
Message added 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 12 (number) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I would have fixed it earlier, but something here on Wikipedia was throwing off blank pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tea Party protests 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Please keep an eye on that page. Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Bishonen's talk page.
Message added 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Category question

Hi Arthur, when you've the time, I added a category to an article I created here [34] and it got removed. The coronaviruses are single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses. Can I create a category for them? Or just add them to the RNA category? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Human coronavirus HKU1 is in

1. Category:Betacoronaviruses which is in:
2. Category:Coronaviridae which is in:
3. Category:Nidovirales which is in:
4. Category:RNA viruses

If all those categories are really inclusions, rather than related categories, or in category by names, WP:SUPERCAT suggests #4 is unnecessary in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I've been reflexively adding RNA virus. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard discussion on WP:RFC/U on user:Xenophrenic

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 16:35, May 27, 2013‎

Central limit theorem

Arthur, I was looking for vandalism and came across a change at this article. I don't understand the maths. Could you take a peak at the changes there? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP reverted just after I posted this. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of Influenza A virus subtype H3N8

Hi Arthur. You recently reverted my changes to Influenza A virus subtype H3N8. I'm a little confused by this. My changes were to provide a more specific wikilink to the 1889–1890 flu pandemic, and to include this virus subtype within the category for that particular pandemic. Can you explain why you feel this needed to be reverted? Generally, it's good practice to justify reversions that clearly aren't vandalism. Thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I intended only to revert your addition of the category, which (linking to a non-existent category) is clearly non-constructive. However, the article previously said it caused the 1889 pandemic or the 1900 epidemic. You changed it to being suspected of causing both. That seems a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that researchers have recently attributed the 1889–1890 pandemic to H3N8 although previously it was attributed to H2N2. I'm less sure about the 1900 epidemic—that's not really one of the major recorded influenza pandemics. Initially I removed 1900 as I assumed the wording "causing a human influenza pandemic in either 1889 or 1900" just reflected a contributor who was unsure of the date. I added 1900 back into the H3N8 article on the principle of an abundance of caution. I have found some passing references to H3N8 as the cause of an epidemic in 1898&ndash1900, so I'll add that to the article. As to the redlinked category, that's just because I'm having a little trouble getting the editing interface to create this category. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. That being said, the problem with linking the category may have to do with "-" (hyphen) vs. "–" (en dash), or possibly "—" (em dash). "en dash" is correct, although WP:DASH has been subject to much discussion. It looks as if you now have the category created properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I added another ref to clarify the level of confidence about attributing the 1889 and 1900 epidemics to H3N8. And I did get the category created at last. Thanks for prodding me to make this more accurate. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:92.26.245.185

Hi, This IP has been vandalizing a variety of articles for several days. Could you take a look if you have a moment? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

2061

I didn't create the 2061 year article, though tidied it up after it was created - but I don't see why you undid this work and decided it should not exist. Is there a policy on year articles? If so, it would be helpful to cite it when sweeping away other people's work. Thanks. PamD 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that 2061 shouldn't be created without creating all of the relevant years and farming out most of 2060s to respective year articles, it being coordinated, and the internals of some of the year infoboxes fixed. Unfortunately, I no longer know how to fix the infoboxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2061

Hi Arthur Rubin,

I am just asking why you changed 2061 back to a re-direct, there was more information in it than in 2059.

Thanks,

Matty.007 07:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw the same above. So are you suggesting that I work on the ten articles in my userspace, or elsewhere, and then release them at the same time?

Thanks, Matty.007 07:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How about if Matty adds {{Under construction}} to the 2060s page, and perhaps a note on its talk page to say what s/he's doing, and carries on where they started from with 2061? Seems better than the complexities of doing stuff in user space. PamD 08:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. I'll ping WT:YEARS to find out where the end links are coded, not that anyone reads that.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Which rule does my signature violate? Its not long at all. eptified 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's over 2200 characters, and it doesn't have the text of your user name nor a link to anything relating to your account. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We're here to write an encyclopedia, not anything else. Think about what signature would do the most to further cooperation and collaboration. If people can't figure out your username from the signature, that's obviously not very practical. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I had no idea that my signature was doing that with the characters - it certainly doesn't look anything like that in my user preferences page. It was a genuine mistake. Also, i thought my username was quite readable but I guess that was another misjudgement. Thanks for the heads-up. eptified 14:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Pirokiazuma

Sorry, but I’ve to disturb you again. Pirokiazuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly warranted a long-term, if not permanent, block. But this is not a clear WP:vandalism case: editing patterns are atypical for a WP:VOA. The patient demonstrated an acute competence problem as well as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but an attentive analysis of the edits shows that they did not bear a demonstrable intention to misinform readers or destroy the encyclopedia. Could you change a substantiation for the block? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, perhaps these changes are better; I added an additional comment on the talk page, and reblocked with a different edit reason. However, how can one distinguish between vandalism and incompetence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Randies are a severe problem, they are possibly more dangerous than vandals for the majority of articles, but Randies are a distinct class of the people’s enemies. A vandal can be distinguished by edit summaries: they are either blank/default, or aggressive, or, contrary, clearly disguising. But they never try to substantiate the change. If edit summaries try to explain merits of changes, one after one – the operator is whoever but not a vandal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW there is a folowup at WP: Village pump (policy) #Extend WP:disruptive editing to include an unbearable incompetence. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Computers and Graphics

Dear Arthur Rubin,

Forgive me for recently reverting one of your recent edits [35]. You see, I'm a big fan of Clifford A. Pickover. So I may be a bit biased in believing that the journals that he helps edit are relatively reliable sources. And so I disagree when I think someone implies that journal is merely a relatively unreliably self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISH) source. I feel there is a difference between (a) someone writing something up and posting it on his own web site without any review, vs. (b) someone who, after his article has been printed in a journal, then making a copy of the journal article that he wrote available on his own web site -- a copy that may make a good WP: convenience link. --DavidCary (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right, but the reference was added by an editor with the same name as the author. Self-published or not, it's a probable WP:COI violation, so it shouldn't be added unless another editor vouches for relevance. In this case, it appears to be about a distinct, and possibly related, topic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

2010

I've restored a slightly altered version of it. The event in itself is significant since it was/is the country's first coalition government to be formed since the Second World War. Because of the first-past-the-post voting system it is rare to have coalition governments in the UK as, until fairly recently British politics has tended to be dominated by two major parties. I'm not sure I see the logic in your argument about the date of the hung parliament seeming "too particular" but I daresay you had something in mind. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems notable in "... in the UK" and "in elections", but, in general, the "first in 35 years" is not considered notable in year articles.

I think I get it. You're saying that, in terms of history 35 years is a drop in the ocean. Also, you seem to be concerned that the event is too localised and/or specific. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Thevideodrome re-added "noughties" to the 2000s, not me on June 21 and it had not been removed for four days which is why I added about "abbreviation" again. I posted on the talk page of Thevideodrome to tell them that it is undue weight. I also want to apologize for adding any incorrect information to the time articles but may I ask precisely what "experimental editing" is on Wikipedia like you warned me about a few weeks ago? 109.151.61.122 (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Who were you when I warned you about "experimental editing"? It's possible I used the uw-test template (warning of test edits) rather than uw-vand template (warning of vandalism). There doesn't seem to be a template for warning of an edit which is wrong, but not vandalism or a test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not a registered user, which could be why you can't find any warnings but when I slightly edited 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 on June 13, all of this was undone as "unconstructive" and "experimental". That was what I was asking about. 109.151.61.122 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly per WP:SEAOFBLUE, although I think you may have been right on some of the incidentals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me

I hope I am not coming off as being rude, but this revert [36] reintroduces possible ambiguity for some our readers, but I'm not going to make a MOS fuss over it. It's consistent and allowed. I'll change the MDY template to June 2013, as the article has no DMY instead of MDY in it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the MOSDATE which has been continually discussed for over 4 years, yyyy-mm-dd is allowed for accessdate and archivedate; however, I agree with your edits eliminating DMY and some of the WP:OVERLINK problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arthur Rubin

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

interesting talk

Hi Arthur, I saw this on the BBC and thought you'd be interested: [37] Malke 2010 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your falsified information and attack against me, Ascendah

It appears you have decided to take out your real-life anger out on me in what is a wrongful and incredibly hypocritical attack.

Edits include

1. [38] 'False, unsourced, and irrelevant.'

   I have lived in England my entire life and the information I added was very true - I have actually never seen a kebab shop without a chicken doner being cooked in the same fashion next to it - ask anyone that lives here. I live in London and there are TONS of kebab shops here, and I love kebabs. What's more, it is very relevant - in fact, the very definition of relevant. The only shred of truth in your statement is that it is unsourced, however all the other information before it was also unsourced, yet you picked my few words out of the ocean of words and cremated them - this is nothing less than a mean and personal attack, not to mention vandalism itself. (Incredible hypocrisy already)

2. [39] and [40] 'If you were an established editor, it might be considered a jest. As you have not had previous contact with Blueboar (talk · contribs), it just appears nonsensical.'

   It appears nonsensical? Your entire comment appears nonsensical, and I wasn't doing anything against the rules - in fact I was actually being productive in using sarcasm and humour (yes, it may not be to your taste, but that's irrelevant) to draw information and to further prove the 'theory' wrong.

3. [41] 'Even if it made sense, it would be about the subject of the article, not about potential improvements in the article.'

   Uh, hello? My edit made complete and thorough sense and there was absolutely no morsel of a good reason to remove it - doing so implies an ulterior motive, a personal qualm or perhaps both. Furthermore, your comment actually doesn't make sense itself - how contradictory! And it is about potential improvements in the article - to discuss my comment further would help to produce more (very relevant) information which would add to the article itself.

4. [42] 'repeated, after being deleted by the subject, as [43] Personal attack in the apparent form of a WP:Barnstar.'

   This is perhaps one of the few times you are actually (somewhat) honest, however it was only repeated as the revision history implied that my message was deleted by a bot, and not the editor themselves. I take responsibility for my slight rule-break here.

5. [44] 'Even if it were honest, which would require a suspension of thought processes, it would not sure any purpose in editing Wikipedia.'

   This is a talk page and was actually a very nice comment, I was simply asking a question - which would in fact contribute to Wikipedia. With the knowledge of Blueboar's fiction, all would have yet more information to benefit from - perhaps even contributing further to Wikipedia with new information that has otherwise been forgotten due to it's perceived low priority.

6. [45] 'On the face of it, it's a request for information to appear in the article. However, no one in their right mind, and probably very few not in their right mind, would think it relevant.'

   Well it seemed very relevant to me at the time - did I do anything against the rules? No, I was simply requesting information on the talk page. Yes, other editors may feel that it should be deleted but you cannot use this as a basis for 'vandalism'.

As anyone can see from the above conversation, you are in fact being incredibly hypocritical and contradictory, vandalising my page and my edits, falsifying information and personally attacking me. In fact, everything that you (wrongly) accused me of you are in fact doing yourself, with force. And once again, all that you are doing implies a personal qualm and an ulterior motive. Ascendah (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ascendah: I only saw your edits because I was monitoring #6 for WP:BLP violations. That one was so out-of-line, that I looked to see if you made other absurd edits. I found only one which was not absurd and did not violate Wikipedia policy. In regard #1; perhaps you are right about kebab places in your neighborhood, but, in southern California, I have not run across any such examples. The edits on user talk pages border on insult (not sarcasm), and appear to be insults without additional context. I you want to indicate sarcasm, use the appropriate markup: <sarcasm>. Tone of voice doesn't carry over well in text media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Aww... I feel like I love you now. <no sarcasm intended> <3 <3 <3 Ascendah (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Term graph

Hi Arthur, I had some thought about the issues you raised about term graph and decided to merge the article with (mainly) abstract semantic graph and graph rewriting (adding the subtopic term graph rewriting). I don't know if you are still interested, but if so, I would like to hear your opinion. Eptified (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried, I really did. Eptified (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You again mistake idempotency for reflexivity

[46] Stop reverting my fixes to mathematical articles since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Here's some good advice - stick to what you know. Eptified (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"it is nonsense in set theory and in universal algebra, where I am expert;" Hahahahahahahahahha. Eptified (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think both parties should engage at the talk page with reliable sources and without personal comments. Spectral sequence (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Beginning the mediation.
Message added 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could I please get you to weigh in on at least Inquiry #3 (and on #1 and #2, of course, if you have anything to say in regard to those). TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mich Kid

Hi Arthur,

Note that the servers believe the 12-month block will expire in August. I'd like to suggest that someone reset that clock BEFORE the server-programmed expiration date. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Emotion in Animals edit reversion of IP edits

Saw the note on blocked sock when examining another edit (repeat of the previous edit that you reverted). That edit has now been reverted and I noted the sock as well (new IP, 141.218.36.42). Perhaps semi-protection on the page, as the attempts seem to be happening weekly?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for combatting OR and possible COI here. I was afraid I was going to end up 3RR-ing the contributor, but you seem to have taken good care of it. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Heyheyhey222333

Hey Arthur get a life pal. I lived in Doha for 10 years. You clearly know nothing about Qatari society and how influential people rank. -heyheyhey222333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheyhey222333 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Heyheyhey. It doesn't matter where you lived. Please read WP:RS. Thanks,  Yintan  08:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Ah yes: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" I wonder if the Pythons knew how long that skit would remain current. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reversions

Arthur, please stop your disruptive editing. As a veteran editor, I'm guessing it is not your intention to be disruptive, but your recent reversions of my edits do not appear to be in keeping with policy, and could be construed as tendentious. Specifically:

• If you feel that Peter Joseph's speculations about his interviewer were inappropriate (and I'm not saying that you might not have had a point), then you could've compromised by removing that portion of the passage, while retaining the quite appropriate passage in which he states that the published interview was inaccurate. As it stands, I've tried to address your concerns by doing just that, but your throwing out the baby with the bathwater approach was not very constructive, and not in the greatest spirit of collaboration. You could've discussed with me, on the article's talk page, what portion of BLP indicates that an interview subject cannot make statements about the interviewer, but to omit the statement by him that words attributed to him in a published interview that is cited on Wikipedia are inaccurate, is clearly inappropriate, and no policy or guideline that I know of, nor any portion of BLP justifies it. I think the scalpel of removing just the portion you disputed, and leaving the rest, rather than the sledgehammer of blanking the entire paragraph, is a far better choice, don't you think? If you don't, then please discuss with me.

• As for your edits to the article Inaccuracies in the Da Vinci Code, they were even less justified, at least apparently. I introduced no "red links" at all in the article, as the only one, for the word homoios, was in the article prior to my edits, and I certainly did not add them. Nor do I see where I interpreted sources, let alone "misinterpreted" them, as per your edit summary. But if you observed such things, you could've fixed those things, instead of a wholesale, blind revert, in which you reversed a number of quite-constructive improvements to the article, including the addition of citations, the removal or updating of dead links, addition of fact tags to uncited material, addition or correction of publication information that was missing from several citations in the article, removal of citations that were either not needed or did not support the passages in question, etc. all of which I have detailed here on that article's talk page. If you continue to dispute my edits, please let me know there. Please do not engage in any further blind reverts. If you observe a portion of edits that you dispute, then fix it, or discuss it. But reverting things that you obviously did not read could be seen as disruptive, and does not lead to a resolution of any conflict. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, in your most recent edit, you removed the page citation from another citation by commenting it out for some reason, so that the note displayed in the Notes section merely says "The Da Vinci Code". You also changed the presentation of the author's name in the citation, which caused a citation error to appear in the Notes section. Seriously, are you even looking at your edits after saving them? Or using the Preview function? The only explanation by you in your edit summary was "Fix malformed citation templates; there is a serious citation style inconsistency, which these edits do not resolve" What edits? Mine? Who said they were intended to resolve citation style inconsistencies? And since when does a legitimate resolution to citation problems cause publication information to be removed from them, or result in citation errors?

And what consistency are you referring to, anyway? You can't be referring to the style of presenting the author's given name and surname in different parameters, because there's only one other citation in the article that does so. For my part, I prefer to wikilink authors, so I place them in one parameter. I've done this with the other citation that had them in separate parameters too, which you yourself could've done if you were interested in a compromise that facilitated an actual "resolution".

Please do not disrupt the article this fashion, or remove content without discussion again. If you do, I'll be forced contact an uninvolved admin to have you blocked from editing, which I would rather not do. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were sensible. The "title" field wasn't a title; I put in the real title and commented out what was there until someone could figure out what it was. I accept that your content edits may be constructive, although many of the citations are malformed or cite an amazon.com page when the actual book should be cited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You thought I was sensible? Just who do you think you're talking to? You made wholesale, blind reverts of the entire article, without even examining them, at least three times. The most recent of these was the one you made just now, which you clearly did out of spite, since you then went and reverted it after you took a look at the edit.

As for the Amazon cite, nothing you did required commenting out anything, nor did anything need to be "figured out", since the citation was clear. If anything needed to be "figured out", then you could've talking to me about it, instead of making a series of clumsy, inept reverts that caused content deletion and citation errors. You have a great deal of temerity to have engaged in the persistent mess-making that you've been in the past 24 hours, and then talk to me about "sensibility", simply because Amazon was named in a cite. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

publisher=Amazon.com is almost always wrong. I verified it was wrong, in this case. "title=Brown (2003), p. 36" was clearly wrong; I verified it was wrong, replaced the title, and left the false title commented out. When you reverted that change, you made a small correction to your original error, but it was still clearly wrong. I had typos in some of my corrections, but I suspect that your creation of the redirect Brown, Dan should be in violation of redirect guidelines.

Actually, I doubt you have correctly interpreted the sources, because your edits mirrored that of a banned editor, but I'm willing to AGF, and I'm not willing to use my limited Amazon in-book search allowance to verify your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of merging former Emir of Qatar page (Sheikh Hamad) with present Emir of Qatar page (Sheikh Tamim)

From Editor858 - Arthur Rubin, it does not make any sense to merge the articles of the former Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Hamad) and present Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Tamim). They are both individual world leaders with accomplishments unique to their reigns and regimes. It would be akin to merging the articles of George H. W. Bush and George W Bush. What is your justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor895 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I replied, perhaps not all of them should be merged, but, if not, the articles need to be different. They aren't. Replied on talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

I received your message on my talk page. Docia49 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic but you have changed it back twice to read, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information is sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, you said my sources were not reliable. I really don't understand your changes. Docia49 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Docia49: The information is sourced further down in the article, including the fact that his "Ph.D." is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion at Wayne Madsen

With you being an admin I'm disappointed with your editing of this page[47] against consensus and Wikipedia policy. After He has been described as a conspiracy theorist was added to the article lead, the edit was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the version accepted was He has been described by some as a conspiracy theorist. Then four days later you changed it to He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist. I again brought it up on the Talk page and User:Capitalismojo suggested we put it to User:Collect as an experienced BLP editor and go with him. Collect replied it is reasonable to say "(sources) have called him a 'conspiracy theorist'". It is not reasonable to include "batshit crazy" as that was an opinion from a single source, and is not placed in a neutral tone in this BLP. "Generally regarded" requires a more explicit source for the broadening of the claim than is currently provided. You then reverted it to your preferred version yet again. Six of the seven references are blogs covering a period of eight years, Wikipedia policy trumps your personal opinion and WP:NEWSBLOG specifically says "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Please self revert. Wayne (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no one who doesn't describe him as a conspiracy theorist, I'm willing to see "he is described as a conspiracy theorist" rather than "he is a conspiracy theorist" in the article. "By some" is WP:WEASEL, although possibly allowable if we can't find a real characterization, "by critics" is too specific. I admit I can't find a specific source for "generally regarded", although it's undoubtedly true, and there's probably a real news article somewhere which says that. If you can find an honest characterization which includes the list of people who describe him as a "conspiracy theorist", it could be in the article (although that characterization might require a source), but "critics" is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem. We can't use "he is described as a conspiracy theorist" as it is too broad a claim to be supported by the sources provided and you don't like "by some" or "by critics" so how do you plan to attribute it? It would not be encyclopedic to name each blog that made the claim. I argue that "critics" is accurate as all those blogs were critical of his reporting albeit most incorrectly claimed that Echelon itself was a conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who says that he is not a conspiracy theorist? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no one who claims he is not a conspiracy theorist. There is also broad agreement (near universal) at the article's talk page and at BLP noticeboard for describing him as a conspiracy theorist. Arthur's edits are entirely reasonable and measured. I'd suggest further discussion on content take place at the article's talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that the edit is supported by there being no sources claiming he is not a conspiracy theorist is not only ridiculous but incorrect as there are several that say his reporting in general falls short of conspiracy theory. The claim must be attributed per WP policy. If you believe it does not have to be, then point out the policy that applies instead of basing arguments on WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If, as I tried to determine, there are no sources which say that he is not a conspiracy theorist, then marginally reliable sources can be used to support the statement. I believe we established that one of the 7 sources given was a newspaper article — in a local paper, but still an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That newspaper article was a single sentence with the rest of the article made up of quotes from four blogs. You are an admin so should know you cant make a definitive statement that violates Wikipedia policies. If you care to do a search, there is at least one RS (ISBN 9781588365330) that discusses the problems with Madsen's writing that specifically mentions, twice, that his reporting falls short of conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a reliable source. Random House does publish some books at random. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The author's bio. Any other objections? Wayne (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say. Even if he is an expert on conspiracy theories (not established), it wouldn't be sufficient to include the controversial statement that Wayne is not a conspiracy theorist, while the statement that Wayne is a conspiracy theorist doesn't strike me as controversial. There's still room for discussion, though. Let's talk on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Can you please respond to my specific counterarguments to your statements on the talk page directly, instead of just repeating the same statements that I've been responding to in the first place? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I'm not saying this just because I think he's a nut. When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. The same applies to material which he thinks is false in his article. The diff of my complaint on Wikipedia would be a source, even if I didn't have a website of my own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's false and you know it. I have referenced policies and guidelines numerous times throughout the discussion. SELFPUB says that self-published sources can be used if five criteria are met. Your position is that one of them, that the material not be unduly self-serving, is violated. I have pointed out that you and the others do not seem to understand what the definition of "self-serving" is, and I cited three reference sources that provide the actual definition, and asked you how pointing out that you did not say something that someone else says you did falls under that definition, and for your part, and the others', you persistently chicken out of responding to this, preferring instead to just repeat self-serving, self-serving, self-serving, over and over again like a parrot.

And in any event, if my objections are not well-reasoned, then why don't you explain why?

When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. No one did. What they did was add Joseph's statement that he was misquoted. So what are you talking about?

And what precisely that I wrote at ANI about Earl King's accusation was not accurate? If you're going to claim that something I said wasn't true, I'd suggest you back it up. Nightscream (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control

I have attempted to respond to your question on the gun control talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You could use {{ping|Arthur Rubin}} so that the new notification system reports it, rather than cluttering this page.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

TPM

By order of Starfleet, you hereby requested and required to revert to this revision. :p Seriously, though, consensus on that page is in favor of reversion to that edit. Please revert it to such.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

You are involved. You cannot make such edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I had assumed the moderator had authority to order the edit (as he said he did), even if not the ability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I may have the ability to order the edit, but SilkTork reminded me that it was inappropriate to request the edit from an involved editor.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 07:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter Joseph

I'm finding your comments ([48][49]) increasingly troubling, almost to the point that I'm wondering if your account has been hijacked. You (?) seem quite sick of this man and have no compunction about injecting bias into articles in order to solidify your feelings as a matter of public information. If you are still you, I seriously hope you'll consider taking a voluntary break from editing this and related topics. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:06, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am quite sick of him. But I'm willing to have accurate NPOV articles about Zeitgiest and him, provided that his statements are given appropriate weight (which is basically very little). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You suggested we could only post a statement of his "provided that it is noted that some of his claims are unfounded." Do you not see how wildly inappropriate a suggestion that is? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:25, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Weight is already given in the article to a particular incident, and you're suggesting we can only post Joseph's reply to that incident if we attach a qualifier that his credibility has been questioned in the past, lest people believe what he says? Are you having a meltdown or something? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:38, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated; as his credibility is seriously questioned, we can only include a statement of his if the credibility of the specific statement is discussed in reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a very original policy you're creating here as far as I'm aware. If a person's credibility has been questioned in the past, there are different sourcing rules? Please show me where that appears in the WP: namespace. Something that pertains to a mere quote (ie. where we aren't claiming the contents of the quote as fact).Equazcion ^(talk) 23:01, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Full disclosure, I'm not a huge Peter Joseph fan myself. I watched Zeitgeist to see what all the hubbub was about, thought it was entertaining and overrated, and didn't think much about it or him for very long. What you're doing here is plainly inappropriate though. Throughout this discussion you've demonstrated a repeated jump between several arguments for keeping a relevant statement by Joseph out of the article, rather than a genuine concern over a particular policy violation. It shows a desperate need to keep the article away from even the possibility of it painting Joseph in any kind of positive light, which is not supposed to be an experienced editor's motivation for editing; yet you've all but admitted as much (and may actually have). This latest justification you've cobbled together from I don't know where is the most ridiculous and I'd like to know if you can show that it's at all valid. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:31, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see how inclusion of Joseph's comment is not a BLP violation. However, I'm not sure that the "distancing" comment itself has sufficient weight for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you don't have a policy-based justification for what you said above. Alright, back to BLP, again. The incident has been given weight already and the comment is part of that incident. Either the entire incident is excluded or none of it is -- that's how weight works. Excluding Joseph's comment would be much more of a BLP violation on that individual than including it would be on a news organization. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:44, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. I think it's unduly self-serving and undue weight, as it's rare that a person quoted is not misquoted about at least one major point. @Tom harrison: thinks it's a self-published statement about another living person. Either mandates exclusion. We can argue whether WP:BLP mandates exclusion of the entire incident; I don't think so, but it may be undue weight. I haven't decided, yet, but as long as the clear BLP violation remains, I'm opposed to inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And your contention is that because misquotes happen often, it's sort of... old news? So we leave those out? Not interesting enough? Denying a quote of yours is accurate isn't unduly self-serving. It's a correction. We can't argue whether BLP mandates exclusion of the entire incident, because I wouldn't have a position on that. You're forgetting that I only suggest exclusion of the entire thing because I don't care whether or not the incident is in the article -- I don't advocate it staying or leaving and don't think that is a BLP issue, even though as a compromise it might alleviate us having to deal with BLP issues. My particular BLP argument is that if we report the quote, we report the denial. If the incident is included, then it must be completely included. We simply cannot include only one side of this. That is POV -- the essence of it -- and a BLP violation on Joseph. A BLP violation on the news organization? I think the individual's BLP concerns should trump the news organization's interests. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:03, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

DEAR KING ARTHUR...

@Arthur Rubin: - On your magical user page, there are boxes on the right-hand side. For example, one says that you are a native speaker of English, and another says that you are an expert programmer. They each have an image. What are these wondrous boxes called, and how do I go about designing my own? Thanks.

Yours sincerely, King Ascendah (of the Kingdom of Awesomeness)

They are called Userboxes. When I first added them, most of them were in the Wikipedia: space, but now almost all are in User: space, and I copied most of them, rather than designing them, myself. I think what you need to know is in the link above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And I changed the comment further up there because it was mean! - KING ASCENDAH (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll archive the comment above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

W00t. — Ascendah (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm RIGHT

I used Stellarium for the occultation for that date and NEPTUNE is NOT near the Moon on that date, URANUS IS!!....idk what program you're using.......go ahead and check for yourself Drode714 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct. But the year, decade, and century, should all have the same planet. Under the circumstances, we should tag both with . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Not famous≠Not notable. I agree that the property may be inappropriate for smaller numbers but seems reasonable enough for numbers between 50 to 100. (e.g 76). The Legend of Zorro 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so to me. 8 out of 100 doesn't seem very selective. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm basically I agree with you. (No opinions either case). The Legend of Zorro 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that I didn't verify the "8 out of 100"; I'm just what the excessive information in the entries reported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert

The word must has no place in a guideline, and is just fluff that serves no purpose. All guidelines have exceptions, and adding the word "must" does not remove those exceptions nor does removing it make it more likely that there are exceptions. The necessity for removing the comma if the state is abbreviated is fact, and was pointed out on the guideline talk page. The example is helpful. Please revert your good faith revert. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I reread the thread. There's no consensus for your change. There is also no consensus for your implication that punctuation is part of proper names; in other words, if we use a proper name which has punctuation, we can still apply our style guide. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this. The rules of grammar dictate that if a state name is abbreviated, there is no comma after the state. We do not often use abbreviations, but when we do, there is no comma. It is a simple fact of how commas are used, and it is useful to make a note of this in our guideline, instead of just saying that there is a comma after the state, when in fact there is no comma if the state is abbreviated. This would not be necessary if we said nothing about commas and states, but if we do, we need to get it right.[50] Apteva (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. It still looks wrong, and your statement that Columbus, OH Statistical Area is an OH Statistical Area associated with Columbus is just wrong. It's a change in the guideline without consensus, even it were correct grammar, but you might get consensus if you didn't misinterpret the phrases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP

I hate to do this, but please remember that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including edit summaries, and this edit summary I believe crosses the line. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "proponent of fringe scientific theories", rather than "kook". I certainly should have said "because I think he's a kook" rather than "because he is a kook". But, in his case, I really don't think "kook" is that far out of line.

I don't think it appropriate to revdel my own comment, but I'll certainly add a dummy edit to clarify, in case it is found appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think it rises to the standard that requires revdel; for me, that standard is quite a bit higher than "inappropriate". I know how frustrating the fringe scientists can get for you, especially since you've been under completely unwarranted attack on at least that page, and so I wanted to let you know that you need to be careful to dial it back sometimes. The same thing has happened to me on other topics (where my frustration with repeated bad editing slips into an outburst), and thought it's better that you hear it as a "warning" from me than as a complaint on a noticeboard somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Kook" in this context is Arthur's opinion and as far as I know there is nothing in WP:BLP that prohibits an editor from expressing a negative opinion. WP:BLPTALK speaks of contentious information from unreliable sources in the context of keeping talk pages free of speculative/unconfirmed information, but I think it's a stretch to say that covers calling someone a kook or an asshole. It may be afoul of civility standards or NPA but it's not a BLP issue. Now, you may think I'm being pedantic but I think the distinction is important as BLP issues tend to attract blocks quicker and more harshly than other offenses. I'd hate to see Arthur get blocked if he inadvertently made a similar comment in the future and another admin saw this as a pattern of BLP violations. N^oformation ^Talk 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Deprodded Nuclear Pasta

I have objected to your proposed deletion of Nuclear pasta. Evidently, this term has been used by a number of scientific institutions, including the American Physical Society [51], the University of Tokyo [52], the University of Illinois (same link), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory [53]. I'm actually glad you put this article on my radar as nuclear pasta seems a delicious (excuse the pun) topic for DYK. Cheers! Altamel (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disappearing edit

Hi, Arthur. The other day I was reading one of Collect's comments in the Tea Party Movement drama and I noticed he wrote "nit" when he meant to type "not", so I corrected it. I'm not Collect, or any other named editor involved there. I edit using my IP address lately. (There's more than 71,000 of us living in Centreville, VA.) Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. "Nil" is a noun, and "not" is an adverb, so he could have had something else in mind. In any case, you don't edit someone's comment without telling the editor that you're doing it, and rarely, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the diff of my correction, in case you'd like to review it a little more closely. In all other particulars, you are quite correct (excepting, of course, your bringing "Nil" to the conversation). <g> and Cheers! as Collect might say. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Block of 99.119.131.212

Howdy- I noticed that you recently blocked the IP address 99.119.131.212 (talk) citing nonconstructive edits. From my POV, the main problem with the user was his changing wikilinks, which I would have been happy to explain to him. I don't see how that warrants a block, much less a 3-month block, particularly if that user not given any warnings. I was hoping for clarification about a block. I couldn't find an AIV about the user. To me, this IP showed some hope and potential and I just want to make sure he is getting his full fill. Thanks. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That IP's bigger violations are external link spamming and a multi-year campaign at block evading IPhopping. Here is some of the historical context for this problem user. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the tps! (Arty,) I don't know what is now your personal... grudge against the editor. I don't see why all of his edits should be reverted. The discussion he opened at Rand Paul's talk page (I feel) is valuable. I see reasons to add the content, and reasons not to. Even if the discussion wasn't good, the fact that the IP began any discussion (and about a sourced and notable event) is commendable. I don't think I have ever seen a talk page edit be reverted, unless it was pure vandalism. I just wanted some understanding of your reasoning and to ask that you allow the discussion to continue. PrairieKid (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I used to only revert his edits which were clearly in violation of the guidelines, and then only those which were probably in violation of the guidelines. But that way lies madness. He's still a blocked editor, and his comments are, more often then not, completely inappropriate for even potential improvements of that article. If you want to restore his edits, that's fine, but please re-sign them yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

" "

In addition, whereas YOU see his talk page comments as good faith efforts to begin conversation, those familiar with the history see it otherwise for nearly all their talk page remarks. Originally, the IP went on an external link spamming spree, to advance the IP's own political views. After I started framing the problem as one of external link spam (with casual edits and zero discussion), the IP started trying to weasel out of that characterization by paying the article talk pages lipservice.... typically by starting a new thread with a few words of glue, and the external link they want to spam us with. If they stuck around to actually discuss how to improve anything with these RSs, things would be different. But look at their gattling-gun rate of edits (check user contributions). It would not be unreasonable to characterize the editing pattern as compulsive ADD/ADHD editing. The hard work of collaborative editing to build a consensus is not what they are interested in. If it were, then the IP would wait out the blocks like everyone else is supposed to do. Instead the IP tells us all to fuck off, by IP hopping as fast as the live blocks roll in. Socking to avoid enforcement is considered a "serious breach of community trust", or words to that effect. I agree with Arthur, the IP's edits are revertable on sight. If you think any of their material merits serious work, i.e., the sweat work of meaningful discussion so as to win consensus on ways to improve articles in collaboration with other editors, I think that would be wonderful. External link spamming, block evasion, and IP hopping sockpuppetry, however, are harmful to the project. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification. I should have looked deeper into it. I think I still will look into that original discussion, and may still add the content, as I do see it as (for the most part) valuable. I apologize if I seemed a little angry there. (I wasn't, but reading my comment, I realize I sounded a little hostile.) Again, thanks all. (On a side note- I really needa get me some tpses. I think this talk page discussion was certainly enhanced by having more than 2 editors involved and, again, I appreciate the feedback.) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't seem angry to me, at least. Just unfamiliar with that particular ed. And you're not alone.... this very conversation often takes place with other eds when they cross paths with this subject for the first time. Happy editing, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at 9/11 Truth movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — TySoltaur (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did justify my edits on the article talk page. 13 days ago. You have not edited the article talk page at all. And, as you remove warnings from your talk page, there is obviously no point in leaving them there, except for the record to support an indefinite block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"indefinite block"? You're one of the few people that apparently likes to revert people's entries (I've seen your history, and a lot of people seem to feel the same way as I), and if you'd check my history, few people disagree with my sourced edits. But, whatever, dude. Whatever floats your boat. TySoltaur (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

An indefinite block is appropriate, even for a minor infraction, if you show no signs of discontinuing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius

Why did you remove the link to the wiki of Svante Arrhenius? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polar_amplification&diff=568894679&oldid=568855544 Prokaryotes (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: It was originally added (twice) by a blocked IP who frequently adds links without checking whether they make any sense or serve any purpose. If you will confirm that it's the right person, go ahead and restore. Your edit summary doesn't indicate that you checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, i don't know if this ip is blocked (how should i?) and primarily it is irrelevant, since the edit in question is legitimate. Prokaryotes (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ABF

You seem to be making incredible assumptions of bad faith, i.e. [54]. Those are legit edits, and even if it were made by a sock, it should remain in the encyclopedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IP is a sock of a blocked editor, and his edits may be removed on sight. If someone wants to restore and take credit for them, that would be acceptable. As I've noted earlier, I used to check each edit for correctness and acceptability, but he makes too many edits to check all of them. When I checked, (February through April, 2013), most substantive edits were either hopelessly unreliable sources, or misinterpretation of the source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I watch for this sock also and agree with Arthur. If you fact check the sock and care to adopt any of their work as a genuine improvement on your own hook, great. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Disputed?"

With all due respect, how on earth is it "disputed" that ALEC is a US conservative organization? I included several reputable sources for that. "Conservative" isn't slander; it's a meaningful term that is well defined in political science and adopted by conservatives. ALEC is a self-described organization of "conservative state lawmakers" that favors "conservative public policy solutions". Here's another recent reference from a long-time ally of ALEC, the Heartland Institute, talking about "Conservative state legislators gathering earlier this month at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting."

Here's a reference from the LA Times. Here's one from NPR. Here's Reuters. Here's the [http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/04/conservative_group_denies_it_m.html Here's the Idaho Statesman.

And this isn't some recent fad. Here's a 1993 reference from the Washington Post. Here's a 1992 reference from the Denver Post. Here's a 1987 reference from the Spokane Chronicle.

It sounds like you're inserting your personal point of view to veto reliable, authoritative sources. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Divisibility rule

I revived a part of your comment that got overwritten by a later editor. Unfortunately this topic-area is a bit far for me to be able to comment on the substance:( DMacks (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 01:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Green lib internal link

Arthur, I can't figure out why Newitz should not be wikilinked? – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be. So far, it's been added by socks of the same blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How about if I add the link. Then these reverts won't take up your/our time. (The G'libs are on my watchlist.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassing an administrator?. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

False accusations

Hi, Arthur. In case you missed it, left a request for you here. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm researching the specific editors, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

IP changing to username in the history?

Over at Promised Land (2012 film) I reverted the IP sock I mentioned at ANI, but the history of that page now says that I was reverting two editors with usernames, not one IP editor. I know that they were IP edits when i reverted them; the "Undid revision 570485428 by 99.119.130.219" is auto-generated.

I was under the impression that the page history (other than revdels) was not changeable. was I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The history seems to me to be as follows:

1. 07:11, July 23, 2013 WP:REDLINK claim by 99.109.127.94
2. 18:19, July 23, 2013 your revert of 1
3. 07:01, August 19, 2013 miscellaneous edit by another IP
4. 03:40, August 28, 2013 absurd claim by 99.119.130.219
5. 14:35, August 28, 2013 my revert of 4
6. 18:59, August 28, 2013 Gareth Griffith-Jones reinstating 4
7. 04:19, August 29, 2013 you undid 4
8. 04:22, August 28, 2013 Rusted AutoParts reinstating 4
9. 05:13, August 29, 2013 you undid 4
10. 08:16, August 29, 2013 Gareth Griffith-Jones reinstating 4

Now. WP:Echo probably reports, to the respective editors, that you reverted 6 and 8, even though you were undoing 4 and your edit summary demonstrates that you were undoing 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's it. I went directly to the edit from my Echo notification. Now that I know that this can happen, I will simply go to the page history and edit from there. Needless to say, when I am reverting an IP-hopping sockpuppet, I don't want to revert some other user without realizing it. Thanks for figuring it out for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of legitimate content on climate violence link

As per your request, you can now explain why this study is not legitimate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_climate_change_on_humans#Removal_of_study_on_violence Prokaryotes (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your tireless maintenance of difficult topics. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me; bot to revert all edits of an editor

Yes, sometimes experienced admins need help, also.

Is there a bot I could use to revert all edits of an editor, preferably with edit summary "reverting sock of blocked editor"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't, there should be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a useful thing. Perhaps we can request that it be created?

If you end up requesting a new bot or script, I think that the edit summary should have a tag that you cannot remove showing that it is the work of the bot plus a section that you can edit so it is suitable for blocked socks, spammers, etc. Also, a big "Are you sure? It is your responsibility..." warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For a name, I suggest "IpecacBot". Seems like use should be restricted somehow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is, or should be, such a bot. I do believe there is a userscript or part of an extension available to do that though. Let me research and I'll get back to you shortly. Technical 13 (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

   Working Still working on it... I've not found what I remember seeing yet, and if I can't find it, I'm fairly certain it can be done with the API and a userscript, so I'll write you such a script if needed. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done, okay, I've asked around and found it... What you need to do is add importScript( 'User:John254/mass_rollback.js' ); to your Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available. To use it: Select the "rollback all" tab when viewing a user's contributions history will open all rollback links displayed there. (Use with caution). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Even better one... Add importScript( "User:Kangaroopower/MRollback.js" ); to your Special:MyPage/common.js and it should be available (after a refresh of course). Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't get Kangaroopower's script to work; pushing the button doesn't seem to do anything. IE 10 and Firefox 23, Windows 7 home. I'm using John254's script temporarily. Could be interference with some gadgets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for letting me know Arthur. I've let Kangaroopower know on the script's talk page and hopefully he'll be able to fix it quickly. :) Technical 13 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, the bug should be fixed now. Technical's whipping up a nice looking interface as well, so if you stick with the script, it'll start looking much better ;). Best, --Kangaroopowah 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY proposal 2

AR, you forgot to sign the proposal you posted. I'll leave it to you to add it on. 99.192.77.211 (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Block notice

Hi Arthur, In the template for this block notice, which I think you devised, I suggest you add some text that new instances of evasion and deemed to reset the clock for the other blocks, whatever the server says about expiration times. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:99.54.138.81

User talk:99.54.138.81, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:99.54.138.81 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:99.54.138.81 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. StormContent 18:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ping

99.112.214.152 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

99.112.215.164 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

108.73.114.181 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

99.119.128.14‎NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

99.181.130.64

99.119.130.219

99.112.215.71

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

98.218.177.155 (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Then again the last one might not be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a different type of single-purpose-editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

99.181.133.149 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

108.195.137.155 a few days ago

108.73.115.31 today

99.181.130.18 today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

121.58.224.85 disruptive editing bot program please block him immeditately

121.58.224.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this ip is running a bot program that is changing massive numbers of the heading sections for year-in dates and countries - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP HIM IMMEDIATELY!--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If Arthur is not available to handle such problems right away, you might want to consider reporting them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism which is patrolled by several administrators (at least it used to be). However, I stopped going to them because they require too many recent warnings (by you) before acting and then the penalties are usually too slight. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You're probably correct. I think the edits are possibly in good faith, but still disruptive. We'll see if anything comes of the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You 68.231.15.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also systematically making edits in violation of the guidelines in "year in the United States" articles. Section headings should not be linked (although some might have a {{see also}}, and, although there should be day-of-year links in those articles, many of the links you are adding violate WP:OVERLINK, and should not be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

i disagree and here is why - in the past this may have been true - that does not prove it is not a good idea which i thought up to use for the future - the reason i think it is a good idea is that the months actually can serve a purpose they should henceforth be used to link to the location where the data was originally drawn from - this is my rationalle - to say something is wrong just because no one thought it up in the past is not forwward thinking - the biggest advantage to wiki (beisides free) is the linkablity of the content--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

i have looked at WP:OVERLINK - and i understand that usually section titles are not to be linked - but remember year-in are "intrinsically"- date oriented articles - linking to "June" would be meaningless but June 2006 does have a purpose as an aid the reader - "to see where the data came from"--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. As the guidelines suggest I am correct, please bring up an RfC (probably at WikiProject US) to support your change in the guidelines within 24 hours, or I will start removing links from headers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A request for comment on a proposal to have year-in articles henceforth add reader useful links within "monthly" section headings with respect to Manual of Style#Section headings--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Got closed by a non-admin there - was he right to close it there? - if yes then where next?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the closure is good. I'd put it in WT:MOS, notifying WT:WikiProject United States, WT:WikiProject Years, and the "Date and number" and "Linking" subpages of WT:MOS. I'm going to be offline for a few hours, so I'll give you more time to set it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Done - here.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

block ended and 121.58.224.85 went right back to template destruction--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

block ended and ip went right back to blockable activity again--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

He stopped over an hour ago, after making only 6 edits. I don't think a short-term block would be productive, and I think we would need more consensus for a long-term (over a month) block. Please take this to WP:ANI, preferably with other IPs he's edited under in the complaint, so we could resolve this in a way that would at least be stable for a while. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in.[55] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the arbs that nothing good can come of this. The RfC finding that the FoF is an impossible interpretation of the actual facts is not something that will do anyone any good. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is "FoF"? And what article is the subject of the alleged edit war? JRSpriggs (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(Arbcomm) "Finding of fact", and the locus is probably Tea Party movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• This was one case I never could make sense of. The outcome is as convoluted as the case was.--MONGO 11:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque vale

Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Collect (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes as much sense as anything else about the case, but Google translate fails. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

First is "Hail and Farewell", second is "It is not your duty to complete the work". Collect (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, if you'd searched in the Wikipedia search you would have found the translation to both. KillerChihuahua 02:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

exceptions to limited bans

I was serious about being persuadable in specific instances. If you are having problems with an individual sockpuppeteer, lay out a specific case (probably at WP:AN) and people may choose to modify the topic ban. There's big difference between modifying an individual topic ban and modifying all topic bans going forward.—Kww(talk) 14:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Bolding redirects in lede

Regarding this edit, is it really the case that the names of redirects should be bolded in the lede? I hadn't seen that before, and MOS:BOLDTITLE only refers to "alternative titles" - WOPR is just the name of a unique character that redirects to the film it appears in. The same goes for David Lightman, but it would seem odd to bold that as well. Is there a line of policy or precedent I'm missing? --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're correct. Feel free to revert. I have to head out to take my wife to a doctor's appointment now, and this article is only in the periphery of my watchlist, so I probably won't even notice. It's not that important an issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Chemical Weapons Convention

Hi. I was wondering why you removed the wikilink here? It seemed like a useful addition. Thanks. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a useful addition, but the IP is a sock of a blocked editor. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for some of the recent history, but it goes back years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the IP be blocked then? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There's little point to blocking the IP; stats before the blocks started shows that it's unlikely the editor will return to the IP within 6 months, and quite possibly never; that would make the block punitive. My understanding is that an IP shouldn't be blocked unless the editor is likely to return to it. If blocked within an hour of the last edit, he may still be there, but as it's been about 10 hours now, there doesn't seem to be any point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When you say it would make the block punitive, do you mean that the IP is reused by a different person, or that it would punish the spammer to have their IP blocked? I don't really understand. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Punitive" is probably the wrong term. I just don't know if the next time the IP is used on Wikipedia is really likely to be the spammer. I mean, there must be some other Wikipedia users in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If this wasn't BLP...

Regarding your edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_National_Council_Against_Health_Fraud&diff=prev&oldid=572847889

You agree that there was a NOR (SYN) vio about a living person. That alone alone constitutes a BLP vio. Compound that with the whole thing not being verifiable and we had textbook BLP. The offending passage is now gone. Thank you. No point dwelling other than as a matter of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.19 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It has to be contentious to be a WP:BLP violation. Is there any dispute? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because the SYN was being used to insinuate that his opinion of NCAHF should be discounted. And without verification, we don't even know he has the opinion we were claiming he had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.20 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That he made the statement at all seems contentious, as we only have his word for it. So, you're right. The part of the statement you wanted kept shouldn't be there. If he had made the statement, his affiliation with the supplement industry is not contentious, nor, really, is the association between the statement and the affiliation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's contentious because it's SYN and the SYN was being used to temper his negative assessment of NCAHF. Even though we would have hypothetically been dealing with two facts, drawing them together in a manner designed to illustrate bias in a person's opinion (where there might not have been) violates BLP. Just because he has ties to the supplement industry, does not necessarily mean his assessment of NCAHF is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.44 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

141.218.36.199 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet

141.218.36.199 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet

i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block

this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

examples -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2013_September_14&diff=573094283&oldid=573085273

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2013_September_14&diff=572982923&oldid=572889927

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=572984164&oldid=572042846

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rex_Tillerson&diff=prev&oldid=573067731

notice that his reason for the wiki edits in the first example is the same --68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted, except one talk page where he made a request which was denied, and the one where you changed the target of a link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits from 99.181.128.8

Could you re-evaluate 99.181.128.8? Since his edits all seem reasonable and good, yet it appears you reverted them automatically. Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You may bring it up at WP:ANI, requesting that he be unblocked, but he's still the same editor. I find a majority of the edits violate WP:OVERLINK (noting there is no consensus that journal and newspaper names should ever be linked), intentionally violate grammatical rules, are incorrect interpretations of the source quoted, are irrelevant to the article, or are additions of arbitrary lists. Note that by his edit to User talk:24.73.41.1, he admits to being that blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

He posted "Hello"? Seems odd from a quick look. Ok, so what do you suggest? I revert your automatic reverts as i see fit? Prokaryotes (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This one didn't post "Hello". When writing on a user talk page, he is either (1) thanking (or making suggestions) on the talk page of a previous incarnation, (2) replying to a "welcome" message, or (3) requesting that a (usually relevant) editor restore his edits on another page. I don't know who he is. He was accused of being a number of blocked editors, but I believe it is considered established all of the IPs were the primary user of the Kalamazoo Public Library (now blocked for other reasons), and blocked per consensus at ANI a while ago. Yes, you may revert any of my automatic reverts as you see fit, giving reasons. I'm afraid I reverted one of your reverts of the IP on the grounds that you didn't give a reason, and I am unable to set the revert reason to "reverting blocked sock of blocked editor" in mass rollbacks. I'll assume that you, at least, are aware that my rollbacks are based on the block, rather than (usually) specifically the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur for explaining this to me and good to know that it would be perfectly fine to rollback (with explanation) valuable edits. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lysdexia

Mr. Rubin, could you review the last 20 or so edits from 99.64.170.58? This is a long term problematic editor (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lysdexia). I'm afraid that there are good edits mixed in with the insanity, and I am unable to parse some of the formula changes in scientific articles. Kuru (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I'll try to get to it in about 14 hours; I was off-line much of the day yesterday (PST), and went to bed before checking my E-mail or Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hello Arthur. I just discovered that you were the third editor to edit my talk page, a long time ago, at the beginning of my career here. You made some very friendly suggestions regarding formatting and other stuff, with a pointer--I don't think I ever properly thanked you for it. In fact, knowing me, if I responded at all I probably did so in asshole mode. If so, my belated apologies, five years--no, six--after the fact. It's that sort of kindness on your part (and that of other editors) that countered my habitual antagonism and kept me going here and, at some disastrous point, made me believe in the project. I salute you. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate Reality Project

Hi Arthur, hope you don't mind my reaching out to you. I was wondering if you'd interested in reviewing a new draft I've prepared for the Climate Reality Project article. It looks like you haven't worked on the article in nearly a year, but you still appear to be the editor who's been most involved with the page, so I thought you might have a better understanding of the subject than other editors.

I'm asking for editors to review this draft because I've researched and written it on behalf of the organization. Because of my COI with the topic I won't make any changes to the article myself. This means that I am also looking for an editor to replace the current version with this revised draft after we've reached an agreement on the changes that should be made.

Since you last worked on the article it has been expanded and reorganized, however it has not really improved. I have several concerns with the current version: the article is supported almost entirely by primary sources and doesn't provide an adequate summary of the organization's foundation and operations, but focuses mostly on their initiatives. I've aimed to address these issues in my draft as well as to update the page so it is current.

If you think this is something you could help with I'd really appreciate it. I've explained these issues in more detail on the Talk page and have linked to my draft from there. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that (not really). ;-P

I think that we disagree about who is in denial as well as the underlying facts. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

198.108.141.254 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet

198.108.141.254 revert michigan kid ip = blocked account = new sock puppet

i guess now he is logging on at his school to attempt to hinder block

this new ip was created just one day ago and is essentially reverting your previous block reverts--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

IPs aren't "created"; but he's now been reverted. Thanks for informing me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not good at reading "whois" data, but it looks like a hospital, rather than a school. Perhaps he's hospitalized. No point in blocking. I haven't checked, but it's likely that blocking the entire hospital would have significant collateral damage. (Now, if it were a mental hospital....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at 99.64.170.58's talk page.
Message added 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for editor attention on Christopher Langan

Hi, the recent edit history on the article Christopher Langan and discussion among other editors on the article's talk page both suggest the need for a second opinion on some recent edits that have been reverted, and some concerns about content raised on the talk page. Thanks. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

request for advice

Dear Arthur Rubin, I refer to your cover note here. I am not clued up about the technicalities here, and I would be grateful for your advice and help. I know there is a banned person about, but I did not actually see how that came into the present matters in the article on Radiative equilibrium. I would grateful if you would perhaps enlighten me a bit about this, perhaps here on your talk page, or on mine?Chjoaygame (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are entirely too many links to thermodynamic equilibrium, in some cases more than one in a section. Quoting from WP:OVERLINK,

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

I unlinked instances where it is linked more than once per section, and attempts to link thermodynamic within a removed link to thermodynamic equilibrium. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific IP in question is 99.109.126.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this kind reply. It is good that you fixed up the excessive linking.

My puzzle was that I didn't see evidence of the reversion of the sock. Perhaps you have used a special technique for reversion, or perhaps I just don't see what's there to see?Chjoaygame (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Somebody edited the lead after the sock did, so I couldn't use WP:UNDO. I'm afraid a failed to indicate the IP in my edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now I see. Thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Asimov

Please see Talk:Isaac_Asimov#Jewish_descent. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent visit to the Prometheus wikipage

Thanks for your recent visit to the Prometheus page, and your edit revert. During the past month I have been making a thirty-day effort to prepare the Prometheus page for a possible page upgrade. Page oversight there has also been helping to revert the unexpected amount of vandalism while i have been bringing in the upgrade edits. Someone actually wanted to credit Prometheus with the invention of ham sandwiches!

Given your recent visit, and the current upgrade attempt, if you could possibly try to make a top 5 list of things you believe would help the Prometheus wikipage this would be much appreciated. The page is presently at about 2000 on the wiki list of most visited pages and deserves a try at something better than its low page rating. Once again, thanks for your recent visit to the page! LittleIPEditor (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Prometheus is not your favorite cup of tea, but do you speak non-Markovian stochastic processes? LittleIPEditor (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LittleIPEditor (talk · contribs), not very well. Does the article need work? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Rubin: The only page related to non-Markovian stochastic processes is likely to be the Martingale page which doesn't go very far. It has been difficult to find someone who knows non-Markovian processes well enough to discuss this topic with. It would be nice to even see what the outline for such a new wiki page would look like.

Separate issue is that I have been trying to find someone who could do a peer review for a Holocaust related wikipage which i would like to nominate for FA status from GA status. It would need someone with a skeptical eye and i did not know if you or someone you might know could offer to do the peer review for the page. LittleIPEditor (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request closed

The amendment request you were involved with regarding Tea Party movement sanctions has been closed and archived. The Committee clarified that using rollback tools to revert sockpuppets is covered under the ordinary exemptions for topic bans. The original discussion can be viewed here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Copying a deleted article

Hello I was wondering if you could copy a deleted article. The page name is Ambeta and if you could get the source or somehow give me the deleted page thatd be awesome Zhiftuno (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why you want it, keeping in mind that most of it is copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Its an old article that I wrote, I would like to see if there is any useable info that I can put in my other wiki page - Zhiftuno (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are also Xetoprimus (talk · contribs), there is nothing there that you could legally use, due to copyright considerations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I just get a copy, also what would be the copyright? And how would I prove that I was that user at one point in time? - Zhiftuno (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Number&oldid=575394236&diff=prev

Hi, Arthur Rubin, why do you feel there is no need to have the article on PlanetMath in the see also section and why do you not want the url to be in the external link section? Lotje (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1. PlanetMath is indirect; the connection is Number - Mathematics - PlanetMath
2. In the link, the edit I intended to revert exposed the venue (PlanetMath) but hid the description (MayanMath2)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert on GWC

Hi, just letting you know I reverted your edit back to the IP's version which added a wikilink I find quite reasonable. If I missed something please feel free to revert me. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 13:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy just left a message on my talk page about this IP. I wasn't aware of the background, I'll try to keep an eye out for this IP's contributions from now on. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ambeta

Now can I get a copy of my page please. Thank you _Xetoprimus (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. User:Xetoprimus/Ambeta. I'll delete it again on request, or in 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now I very much understand why this page was deleted. I just wanted to see the full copy. Can you get my sandbox one aswell? Its been a year and I would like to see what I had on it, im not sure how much different it is from ambeta. _Xetoprimus (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I'll delete then both by tomorrow morning (Pacific time). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok sounds good, thank you for all of your help_Xetoprimus (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside

The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bell Theorem Edit

This is regarding you undoing my edit to Bell's Theorem subsection: Original Bell's Inequality. These edits happened last year but I never followed up. Your comment to undo my edit was "That's just wrong. You seem to be assuming "independence" between A=B and B=C, which is not generally true, even if there hidden variables." So you're telling me it's impossible for A to not equal B and for B to not equal C? Because if that is the case then it should be stated in the article to avoid confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Original_Bell.27s_inequality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick023 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Slick023, it's wrong. You are making the assumption that the events A=B and B=C are independent. In general,

$P(A=C)=P(A=B)+P(B=C)-1+P(A=C\neq B),$

leading to (one of the) statement(s) of Bell's Theorem,

$P(A=C)\geq P(A=B)+P(B=C)-1.$

You seem to be assuming that

$P(A=C\neq B)=P(A\neq B\neq C)=P(A\neq B)P(B\neq C),$

where the first equation is correct in context (only 2 states) while the second is an arbitrary assumption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

$P(A=C)\neq P(A=B)+P(B=C)-1+P(A=C\neq B)$ JRSpriggs (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

$P(A\neq B\lor B\neq C)=P(A\neq B)+P(B\neq C)-P(A\neq B\neq C).$

$P(A\neq C)=P(A\neq B)+P(B\neq C)-P(A\neq B\neq C)-P(A=C\neq B).$

so, substituting

$P(X\neq Y)=1-P(X=Y),$

we get

$P(A=C)=P(A=B)+P(B=C)-1+P(A\neq B\neq C)+P(A=C\neq B).$

If there are only two values for A, B, and C, then the latter two probabilities are equal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since P(A = C ≠ B) is a real number, 2 P(A = C ≠ B) ≠ P(A = C ≠ B) unless P(A = C ≠ B) = 0. So the last step of your argument fails. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Friend's new tactic

It seems our friend has adopted a strategy of user-space abuse. Compare the talk page for

• 99.181.136.45 (talk · contribs).... You already blocked this IP and hid his linkfarm boilerplate.

However, he appears to be propagating

• 99.109.124.49 (talk · contribs)
• 99.181.132.184 (talk · contribs)
• 99.181.135.146 (talk · contribs)
• 99.181.135.250 (talk · contribs)
• 141.218.35.26 (talk · contribs)

The range blocks we had last year would prevent most of this. I was sorry to see the rangeblocks go away, and am unaware of any collateral damage reports when they were in place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bring the matter to WP:MfD, but I seem to recall that a previous deletion attempt failed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks for being open minded

you seem like an honest editor, thank you, debate is vital to democracy. 188.221.174.65 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car

Are you sure that you have reverted to the version of this article that does the best job of citing and summarizing reliable sources? Because a new editor has come to the Teahouse, concerned that their efforts to improve the article have been reverted. Thank you for your attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it more closely. The first sentence, at least, was much better before the edit, as the new version ignores the fact that any "water-fuelled" engine is a perpetual motion machine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you that this and all similar schemes amount to a "perpetual motion machine". We both know that any practical mechanism to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen will consume more energy than burning the hydrogen will produce. But do the reliable sources reporting on this particular scam call it a "perpetual motion machine"? The editor you reverted seems to be making a good faith effort to edit the article in compliance with our guidelines on fringe science, as well as what the range of reliable Pakistani sources are saying, some supportive and some harshly critical. I encourage you to engage with this editor, who seems to be acting in good faith. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Purpose

Besides Wikipedia:Purpose, see wp:Audience among others ... 108.73.113.212 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You're still the same blocked person. See also WP:NOTHERE (you're clearly mostly here to emphasize your favorite Wikilinks) and WP:DENY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Estate tax in the United States

For what it's worth, the material I added to this article seems pretty straight-forward to me. Those who support the estate tax commonly consider it ridiculously unfair to get rid of this, of all taxes. The whole thing screams rich people protecting rich people, wanting their children to come out on top, and rationalizing why this is all for the greater good. I'll say I was interested to see how closely, but not exactly surprised, that the Alstott article seems to cover all of these points. I notice Rawls is in the first citation. As she later says, "Starting from conditions of equality, if everyone could then agree to make a change, either despite their divergent views and interests and prejudices (this is Ackerman's device) or from a position in which they cannot know their station (this is Rawls's original position), then the substance of their agreement would be worthy of respect." A few paragraphs up: "One familiar device, used in varying forms by different theorists, is to inquire whether citizens debating the issue in some (more-or-less) ideal setting might consent to inequality. Even without entering into the debates over just how thick the veil of ignorance ought to be.... one can imagine a plausible range of solutions, all involving significant (but not confiscatory) taxation of inheritance...." All I did, in the last bit you removed, was to clarify what this argument from the "veil of ignorance" is in fact, most simply, alleging: that people oppose the tax due to vested interests rather than sound philosophy. Of course, many more people can be led to oppose something when you come up with a good phrase, like "death tax," and ask them how they feel about that.

Incidentally, I wonder how you take the first argument under the opposition section. "People should not be punished because they work hard." Is this not silly? If people shouldn't be punished for working hard, how do they support taxing earned income over inheritance? Then we have, "Free market critics of the estate tax also point out that many attempts at validating the estate tax assume the superiority of socialist/collectivist economic models." And then "For example, proponents of the tax commonly argue that 'excess wealth' should be taxed without offering a definition of what 'excess wealth' could possibly mean and why it would be undesirable if procured through legal efforts." This is argument by buzz word! Admittedly I am interested that to the author, and many readers, it seems to be inconceivable that, in any amount or in any context, putting unearned money into one person's hands but not another's, could be "undesirable." I bet a classroom of kids would get it, if we tried it on them. Not that criticism of "excess wealth" is actually a prominent argument. YMMV.

If I'm cynical, I say people oppose the estate tax so strongly exactly because of its manifest fairness. It's a tax that promotes equality of opportunity (not of results), self reliance, earning your own way, the basic connection between wealth and the entitlement to benefit from that wealth that economic conservatives assume in defending the inequality in our system. A tax that makes things more fair than they otherwise would be? That must be stopped! This, I'll acknowledge is "original research," in the sense that I don't care to find someone else who had the same thought.

Apologies for polluting your page here with a bit of chatter, but the truth is I suspect you didn't read the Alstott article very carefully. It isn't anything like an op-ed -- it's a careful analysis of how political lefties approach this topic. Seems quite comprehensive to me, and it certainly covers the material I included. Not that it bothers me too much if you delete a bit. I seem to be here for catharsis, mainly, if you'll please not use that against me. 67.168.11.194 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks

I know it was not your intention to create a controversy, but I went and looked at the links in the restored version. Virtually none count as reliable sources under BLP, and especially BLPCRIME, I feel. They are mostly court documents, news reports about the court case that are one-time events, and market wire pr releases. The effect is to add up to an attack page. So instead of replacing the prod, I tagged it for CSD as an attack page. There was also some discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this page: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_N._Rooks. Thanks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed that way to me, also, although news reports about the court case, even if "one-time events", might be evidence of notability, even if not usable for the underlying facts.

However, as, looking at the "article", I was going to delete it as {{db-person}}; I wanted to have reviewers note that there had been something there before. For what it's worth, I saw the article only because I noticed the BLPPROD notice on an editors talk page, which I had previously warned for vandalism. I hadn't see the Rooks article at all before then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Either way, we both appear to agree this article qualifies as BLP violation and should be deleted. I can see your point about the two reliable sources that mention him in passing, but as passing mentions I basically ignored them. A slight difference in interpretation, then. Thanks again. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is irrelevant, as it is about reporting suggestions that someone has committed a crime before a conviction has occurred, and in this case it is clear that convictions have taken place. (That the existence of a court document relating to a case is no evidence of notability of anyone involved in the case is self-evident, but why it should be regarded as an unreliable source I have no idea. It is surely the most reliable source of all for the fact of a conviction. Suitable sources for establishing notability and suitable sources for verification of facts are not by any means always the same.) It does seem to me that the available sources (by which I mean both those cited and others I have found on searching) fail short of establishing notability by Wikipedia's standards, and so deletion via AfD would seem reasonable. However, the sources do confirm the essential facts recorded in the article, so I cannot see it as WP:CSD#G10 candidate, "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In reply to James, who said, "It is surely the most reliable source of all for the fact of a conviction," when we assess these things we always should check whether the appeal period has passed and whether an appeal was file. My whiteboard is a good source for what it says right now, after all. If I don't erase it soon enough, it will be stained that way permanently. Anyone on the outside thinking about my whiteboard's status rather needs some idea of the status of potential erasure in order to really know what to make of it all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that applies no more to court records than to any other source, such as a newspaper which may have been published before an appeal. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Natch.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the deletion reason, but I agree with the editors other than Eggishorn here. There is little evidence of notability (but I believe a blanked version should have been safe from A7), and some of the sources would have been BLP-reliable. I don't think we have enough non-primary sources to support notability, so it should fail at AfD. I'm not going to complain if it was speedied, as that would be making a WP:POINT, but I don't think it should have been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how this article bounced through every article deletion process the wiki has (save office actions), I'm not very concerned as to the how it finally departed this vale of tears, just that it did. I've never been one for preferring policy to results. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayward IP?

Hi Arthur - I noticed that you removed the statement(?) from the user:99.181.131.235 from my talk page, and blocked him for three months. I'm curious as to why all this happened. I didn't see any history of vandalism, and I just saw a statement from him to me requesting help. Please let me know - take care... Dinkytown talk 08:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

He's the same person as the blocked editor noted in User:Arthur Rubin/IP list, although I am unlikely to catch all of them, as he occasionally makes only one or two edits. Adding the 130kB "notes" is a relatively new improper action, starting this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Some background is here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on three-revert rule

Hello. Yesterday, you posted on my Talkpage a warning for violation of the three-revert rule. Yet I notice that in your own edit history shows far greater number of reversions during a recent 24-hour period. I get the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you regularly—at least lately—exceed three reversions per such period. Please, will you clarify to me what how either I am mistaken about this or what qualifies this activity of yours ? — Occurring (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Further reading the rules, I presume I have resolved part of my confusion—the rule applies to a single article. What I do not understand, however, is that the warning placed on my page indicates that virtually any change at all to any previous editors' work—unless, presumably, it is by neutral addition—counts as as not only a revision but a reversion. Yet the page describing a revert itself suggests that a revert is, rather, a full undoing of a particular editor's work. — Occurring (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@Occurring: any undoing of part of an editor's work is considered a reversion. In some cases, if you deleted an editor's contribution, then modifying it might be considered a reversion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My Comment at Arbcom

I don't want to be belligerent, but I honestly don't see the attack. Was it me calling it a game? Tarc was doing an 'experiment' to 'prove a point' and even stated it's 'been fun to pretend' and characterized the act as a 'schtick' done to 'push peoples buttons'. I don't think it is a far cry to call that playing a game.

As for the conclusion, while mine doesn't match his, I think its relevant because I'm saying he argued a point he didn't agree with, but was capable of doing so without being offensive. Something several other participants failed to do. So again, I'm not seeing the attack as it specifically states he wasn't being, as I said, a raving hateball.

If you still think its an attack, I understand but disagree. But did I at least get why, or am I still not seeing it? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to think about it. I need to take my wife to a doctor's appointment, so I'll get back to you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I now see it as your misinterpretation of Tarc's comments, rather than an attack. If there's somewhere you want me to withdraw the statement, I suppose I should. I do apologize for my hyperbole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pythagorean triple

Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_triple&diff=next&oldid=579416318 -- maybe you meant to undo one of the two earlier edits of FJackson? --JBL (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Both, actually. I question the importance of the entire bullet point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Reverted Vandalism

I am not a Vandalizer please stop reverting valid content and making false accusations

Edit: my mistake I do not think you were talking about me

sorry for the misunderstanding if there was one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the anon sockpuppet. You need to talk to Chewings72 (talk · contribs). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Given your beliefs as per your user boxes, you may have a view of EditGuyy111's changes which I tried to revert but he put in again. Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Source aren't there

yeah the sources are there stop reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Editguy111:. None of the online sources supports any use of the word "Judaean", although the alternate title Philo Judaeus suggests one use of the term "Judaean". The (now complete) removal of the term Jewish should be considered vandalism, as "Judaean" does not imply "Jewish" by any stretch of the imagination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion. —sroc 💬 08:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Block request

Hello, Arthur, would you please block Special:Contributions/178.148.130.96 for expiry set of five months, because he/she did vandalism especially unexplained or reverted unsourced music genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.245 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems

No problems about the category removal at Burzynski Clinic, and thank you for your interest in the topic!

Have a great day!

— Cirt (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons

I notice you recently reverted an edit to remove an important caveat that appears in the source from the article. Articles should not really say more than the source. grateful if you could explain the revertion on talk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that the source didn't have that caveat, but said it in the same voice as there is no evidence that Morgellon's is not DP. If I'm wrong, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 74 Runs 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:

• {Rfd/core|[Sachin Tendulkar|month = November

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sachin the maestro 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:

• {Rfd/core|[Sachin Tendulkar|month = November

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Conrad (mathematician)

I am currently working on an article about the political cartoonist Paul Conrad. Whenever I work on a topic, I always check to make sure the subject is disambiguated. Today, I found that Paul Conrad (mathematician) is a possible article title. I have not heard of him, so I am not sure it is notable, but he is listed in the American Men & Women of Science. He lived from 1921-2006 and worked at the University of Kansas on ordered algebraic systems and group theory. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't recall the name, but I'll see if I can find something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: pp-semi

Your question doesn't say why I should do it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reason to "rollback all" my edits related to it. There are several pages that still protected. I'm not a bot, I can make mistakes. If I added a tag to a non-protected page, it can be removed, but there's no real reason to do it if the pages still protected. Also, if my edits included "removal of vandalism" (if any), why it should be reverted? Tools are certainly not used for those purposes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't know you found talkback's annoying; I assumed you were just removing them because you had seen them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Arthur, I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie is trying to delete large portions of the article. I have commented on the talk page and left warnings on their talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A newbie obviously created the original article in the first place. I am going to replace it - completely. The Plasma Cosmology page should be about Plasma Cosmology. The current article is little more than the culmination of topic hijacking. It reads more like an article about the triumph of the Big Bang Theory than an article about Plasma Cosmology. It will be replaced - period. I hope you will approve of my changes. I plan to remove every reference to other models and focus solely on Plasma Cosmology. If you have no interest in the topic, then keep your hands off. Critics are not authorities. Advocates are not authorities. I will present a neutral article that deals solely with Plasma Cosmology. Furthermore BullRangifer, your strong insult will not be tolerated. talk 21:43, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Coming from a newbie, that's pretty strong language which reveals a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I've been patient with you. I could have already had you blocked for edit warring. Your attitude is what we call "I didn't hear that," in other words you are not learning from much more experienced editors, even though they have left you warnings, advice, and links to more information. We don't completely rewrite articles here. You don't own the article. It belongs to all editors, and you should show some respect for those who have put time into its creation.

We do want article improvement, so small increments are good for a start, considering you're a newbie. Right now you seem to have no sense of the situation. To illustrate, it's like you're wading into someone else's living room and demanding that they operate their home according to the rules which you use at your home. You're demanding they throw out all their pictures and rearrange their furniture because you don't like it, but you don't know WHY they have arranged their home the way it is. Maybe there is a reason. After all, the rules for interior decorating in their home (Wikipedia) are FAR different from the rules in your home (your website or blog). The rules are totally different here, and if you don't learn them and listen to what we're telling you, you will end up getting blocked. It's that simple. We are very long suffering with newbies, but when they don't listen and learn, we simply get rid of them. Now show a bit of humility and start asking questions instead of making demands.

Let me introduce you to whom you're dealing with right now: Arthur a very distinguished mathematician in real life and is an administrator here (sysop, 89588 edits since: 2005-08-15). I am a Physical Therapist (with a Physician Assistant education besides that) and an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18). We are both experienced enough to help you, if you'll allow it. Since you will never be allowed to edit alone here, without other editors having a right to watch your every move, comment on your talk page (you do not own it), and revert your edits when there are ANY disagreements, you'd better get used to working with others. Communication and civility are valued here. That's how we work.

When in doubt, or if you meet any resistance, the proper reaction is to back off, ask questions on the talk page, discuss until a consensus is reached, etc.. Never attempt to force/push your POV into the article over the objections of other editors. The resulting article will likely never satisfy you, and that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. Other editors have a right to their input, and they will likely find reliable sources documenting POV with which you disagree, but NPOV requires the inclusion of opposing POV. If a subject is fringe, the article will document that fact and the mainstream POV will be dominant. We simply reflect what RS say.

You also need to remember to use edit summaries for every edit and comment, use the edit history to check for edit summaries before making edits, sign your edits properly (using four tildes (~~~~), etc.. I'm going to leave a welcome template at the top of your talk page. It has lots of good links to help you get up to speed. Read them very carefully before proceeding. I will also leave a modified copy of this message, just for the record. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dash grammar

At WT:MOS#Why "unspaced" em dashes?, could you elaborate on the “different grammatical meaning” that you think spaced en dashes have? No one there seems to be aware of it. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Judaean vs Jewish

Judaean preserves more value of antiquity and is more contextually accurate Jewish is a modern ethnic why do you disagree with these valid facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

They are independent concepts. As far as I can tell, "Jewish" is what is supported by the sources. "Judaean" (probably misspelled) is not the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

they are not the same thing I have already gone over that the Romans called the land of Canaan as Judaea and called its inhabitants Judaeans and they later annexed Judaea Lebanon and Syria into one big province called Syria Palaestina where the name Palestine comes from please revert it back I will keep trying to revert it as it is more accurate Editguy111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See Ioudaios for context on this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Santilli

I wouldn't bet that the comments aren't serious.

I read his comments and his website, and I got A Modest Proposal-like vibe from them. Then again, I also got batshit crazy vibe as well. It's hard to say if he is doing this just to piss people off or if he really is insane. Might be both. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting edits

Hi, Arthur. I'm not sure what your intentions were with this request, but I want to make sure you know that asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. As far as I can tell, Arzel hasn't acted on this, and hopefully he won't. If he doesn't act and I don't see any more such requests from you, I will let the matter rest with this reminder. --RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably correct. However, the first point is just an error on the person's part. This relates to a clarification request I made which was ignored; if A really isn't related to the TPm, then the letter of my topic ban would allow me to remove the false statement that he is, but it would violate the spirit of my ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "spirit" of all topic bans is to encourage otherwise productive editors to stay away from topics where they get into unproductive disputes. There are literally millions of pages on Wikipedia that don't have any plausible association with the topic ban, so why do you need to be editing at Koch Industries or worrying about the naming and use of TPM categories? This is a good time to pursue an interest in articles about horticulture or basketball or model ships or 19th-century British theater or physics or whatever, so that no one can question that you are faithfully following the spirit. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

RSN

As I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, I'll post a comment I nearly put there here.

"I would hope that proven errors should be relevant to whether a source is WP:RS."... well I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, but cf Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#.22Consortium_News.22_at_October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory, where a 1991 The New Republic article knowingly including a false claim on a key issue (per Craig Unger, who was there, and called it "the most dishonest thing in journalism" he'd ever seen, or words to that effect) continued to be merrily cited as a reliable source. In general, actual error (even deliberate error, on the rare occasion that is proven) seems irrelevant to "RSness", at least for things published by mainstream media organisations with editorial oversight. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom topic block on Tea Party movement

Arthur, I'm very much not trying to get you blocked; I'm warning you off so that you don't get blocked. But if you ignore the repeated warnings from myself, User:MrX, User:RL0919 and others, this isn't going to end well. MrX has already mentioned WP:AE, and to be fair, he's not wrong to do so.

Please work with us to prevent a completely avoidable block. You don't even have to acknowledge guilt. Just admit that your edits to Koch-related articles (especially Political activities of the Koch brothers) have been considered by some to be skirting the edge of your topic ban, so you're voluntarily avoiding those articles just to prevent the appearance of violation. This reasonable response will get all the pressure off you.

Will you do this? MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

You are the subject of an ARBCOM arbitration enforcement request here: WP:AE#Arthur Rubin. - MrX 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Astrodynamics and orbits

Hi, Arthur. I've noticed that you are a mathematician and aerospace engineer. Having these qualifications, I thought you could clarify some aspects concerning spiral trajectories of orbital bodies like satelites and the requested force laws that could allow spiral trajectories, aspects which are missing from articles like Cotes spirals which says these spirals are trajectories for moving in a inverse-cube central force. That article has some steps missing in the demonstration that could be clarified. Thanks for your answer--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IEEE technical societies

If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Wikipedia. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — IEEE Life Member

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
Message added 01:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All the best. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Finished

I fell asleep. As long as we're on the topic, do you think that 22nd century should swallow all those tiny decade articles? Also, are you saying you want me to remove "Centuries in the future" and "years in the future" Serendi^podous 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think the 22nd century should have had the decades in the first place, but, when I first started, 2100s (or 2100–2109, or 2100s (decade)) already existed; around 2010, someone created 2110s, on the grounds that years up to 100 years in the future should be incorporated in decades, and then someone else created 2120s–2190s to create a perceived pattern, even though some of them were empty of content. I'd be in favor of absorbing all of them into 22nd century (at least until 2050, when most of us will no longer be editing ).

As for categories; I don't recall the exact name, but there was a deleted category which was supposed to incorporate decades, centuries, and millennia in the future. I have no objection to combining all the future eras (year or long) into a single category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for noncompliance with your Tea Party Movement topic ban, per the corresponding WP:AE thread,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  13:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Sorry to hear about your block Arthur. I read it and I utterly don't agree with it but then I have vocally opposed the abusive nature of AE, Sandstein and the broadly construed language frequently used. I think this action typical of Sandstein and his attitude to block anyone submitted to AE and the communities utter lack of control of him or the AE process. Just one of the multiple reasons I have largely stopped editing WP. Personally to me it reeks of a not so subtle attempt to torpedo your Arbcom run. Anyway, enjoy the week off. If you get bored we always need good editors over at Wikia. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I find your conspiracy theory less than credible, Kumioko. There was enough pre-knowledge indicated here that it was known that this was at the very least skirting the edge of his topic ban. If there's doubt, then bring it up with an arbitrator informally (or even formally as a clarification request) before doing it. If Arthur wants to appeal it, Sandstein has placed a link on how to appeal it in the block notice, however I doubt that there would be a successful appeal. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully know how to do an appeal but I don't have any faith in the appeals process or in Sandstein. Which is likely why Arthur or anyone else hasn't bothered. It would take more than a week to fight it (and you and Sandstein know this) so its better just to wait it out. He almost never overturns his rulings and even then only under intense community pressure. I am also way beyond caring if people believe my "conspiracy theories". Also if Arthur was skirting the edge then that means we should Assume good faith not abandon all faith and block them just in case. If you bother to look into the case of this AE block you will see that most people thought the argument for a block was weak. Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew that there was a claim that the article was covered by the topic ban, although the section clearly wasn't additionally covered by the topic ban. I also don't see a "conspiracy". For what it's worth, I was in the process of withdrawing the comment while the AE complaint was made, but there is no way to prove that, and .... I'm not going to say any more. I was starting to agree with Kumioko, and we all know that, even if accurate, that would not be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes agreeing with me is certainly not a good wikicareer move. :-) I'm not (or will I ever be) an admin on this site and everyone knows regular editors can't be trusted. One of the many reasons I'm barely editing here anymore. I'm just glad the Wikia project's have more faith in their editors. That way as Wikipedia dies, we can fork off the content and continue to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Welcome back. Kumioko (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I can understand how you might feel that regular editors don't get a lot of respect, but I think everyone knows that Wikipedia depends upon all of our contributions. While Wikipedia is losing editors, I can't imagine that a fork will somehow succeed where Wikipedia is failing, precisely because it would be just as dependent upon free labor. Do you know something I don't? MilesMoney (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal

Hello. I've become increasingly concerned about edits that MorningGlory3 is making to The Courage to Heal, which seem to be having the effect of portraying the book in an overly-favorable way. If you could review what has happened at the article recently and express a view of it, that would be helpful. I'm asking you as you have edited the article in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: I'm blocked at the moment. My recollection is that I agree with you about MorningGlory3, but I'll check back on 21 December. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that you were blocked after posting here; if you can take a look at the article when the block expires, that would be most appreciated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Arthur, FYI I addressed a thread to you and VSmith at the other's talk page here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, they aren't random IPs; they are previous incarnations, including, occasionally, some that hadn't been previously detected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory. Thank you.

Notifying you just because your name was mentioned beside a diff. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm blocked at the moment; I had thought that Brian Josephson was a POV editor; I hadn't realized he was also one of the principals mentioned in the article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that. Sorry about the block. If you want me to post anything to ANI on your behalf, let me know. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I told you I would no longer defend your actions, but if you had taken SimpsonDG's hint and given up on the proxy editing, I would have turned the other way. As it stands, I've reported you to WP:ANI. Below is your formal notification template:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said (elsewhere on my talk page), I will not report MilesMoney's violations at this time, because that would be in violation of my block. However, his transparent attempt to have me banned cannot be considered in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention: I did not ask to have you banned. I asked for the timer on your block to be restarted because you evaded it and for your talk page access to be removed because you used it to evade the block. I explicitly said I do not want you indeffed. The fact that you keep threatening me and violating WP:AGF does not reflect well on you, and it does not undo your block evasion, regardless. My advice is for you to wait out another week without further evading the block (as by sending email to your proxies), and then carry on as normal. This is what would make your life easiest, but it's your life and your choice, but also your consequences. Think it through. MilesMoney (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the ANI thread's full pinpoint link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, in defending you, Johnuniq conceded:

Regarding the talk page: it's owner should just wait out the block and keep personal notes off-wiki, and while onlookers are welcome to act on such benign points, acknowledging them on the talk page is sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block—it would be best to skip that.

If you ignore the spelling/grammar error, I think you'll find another polite suggestion that you should stop evading the block. MilesMoney (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the nth degree

I just noted in my watchlist your apparently exhaustive efforts to reign in the IP sock factory. I am, quite simply, in utter awe, Arthur. I don't know much approbation you get from Wikipedians, but I can state unequivocally that it simply is nowhere near enough. Tracking a creep over two years would make me lose all my faith in humanity, and yet, you still appear to be generous, articulate and detail-oriented. Thank you ever so much for helping to make Wikipedia a place where I can edit with a minimum of interaction with sock-puppets. You are a mensch, sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't have any experience with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, do you? Would it be helpful to get our friend entered there? Ahoy Vsmith (talk · contribs) (and anyone else) - thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Error detected section

If anyone monitors this, please feel free to comment on fixes. Otherwise, I'll get back to it when my block expires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, please be aware that directing other editors to make edits on your behalf during a block is a violation of WP:EVADE. What you have here is more indirectly "suggesting" rather than "directing," but it looks to me like you're skating a little close to the edge. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it. Are you saying it's inappropriate to take notes as to edits I intend to make later? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it, either. Had Arthur pinged me at my page, then I would agree with Simpson. However, this looks to me like Arthur's own "to do when I'm back" list. The only way this is a major no-no is if WP:EVADE trumps WP:AGF. An assumption of good faith compels us to read the opening words "If anyone monitors this...Otherwise, I'll get back to it..." as honestly meaning just what it appears to be: a very generalized invitation for anyone to look into any of the items posted here. I watch Arthur's page out of a common interest in combatting external link spam from a Michigan IP. (See here and here). Is there some reason I can not, on my own initiative, look into and decide to "own" any of these items? I would have done what I checked off below had I stumbled across it on my own. It is my edit, not Arthur's, and I was not recruited as a hired gun.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. One of the things that got Arthur blocked in the first place was that he tried to evade his topic ban by asking another user to edit for him. Now that he's blocked, he's treating the whole thing as a joke by once again recruiting others to edit for him. The excuse about planning future edits is a transparent lie; I'm sure he knows how to keep a text file open on his own computer. MilesMoney (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were to gather your offenses and/or evidence that you are a topic-banned editor, that should be done as a text file until there is sufficient evidence for an RFC/U or an SPI. Why should I not report vandalism as I see it? As for text files on my computer, when I was using IE to edit, it frequently crashed, losing information in the text files (but not the list of tabs I had open in IE, for some reason.) Now that I'm using Firefox, it's not crashing, so I could use text files, but why, when it is perfectly reasonable to store the information on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IE means Windows. Windows comes with Notepad. You could just use Notepad. Even if it crashes (and it doesn't), you could save after every change. There is absolutely no reason for you to keep this list on Wikipedia.

You know why you can't put up a list of desired changes and wait for others to make them: it's directly against WP:EVADE, which is what you violated to get yourself blocked in the first place. Anyhow, save your unconvincing explanations for WP:ANI, and save your thinly-veiled threats for someone who can be intimidated. MilesMoney (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, you don't normally ask other editors to "comment" on your changes, do you? Also, you should note that the "comments" people are leaving on your suggested changes are simply acknowledgements that they've made the changes you've suggested. According to WP:EVADE, other editors are not supposed to be making edits on your behalf unless they can show "independent reasons for making such edits." It seems to me you're coming awfully close to violating WP:EVADE. You could save yourself the appearance of a violation by simply keeping these notes locally on your own computer, rather than posting them here. SimpsonDG (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I think this was a bad idea. Talk page access is primarily to allow block appeal. It is also permitted for other edits, the normal type of things one adds to talk pages, but effectively requesting proxy edits, with the thin veneer of a to-do list, is over the line IMO.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I stop short of endorsing Sphilbrick's "thin veneer" characterization, I also think that when we are lucky/smart/awake/honest enough to realize, beforehand, that an act could be used by another as the basis for the other person's claim of wrongdoing, then the simple goal of drama-avoidance is usually a sufficient reason to refrain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, if I may make a suggestion: if you really want to store your future edits here, why not just post a notice here asking other editors that they not make these changes themselves? I think that would satisfy everyone that you're not trying to violate WP:EVADE. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with a "do not touch" list such as this is: First, there are people like me who evaluate proposed edits based on merit, and arriving at an "independent" conclusion that the project would benefit from a proposed edit will ignore such a request. Second, I might come by the article and make the edit without even knowing the edit was on AR's "please don't touch" list. So that's a bad idea.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As a clarification, I am not asking other editors to make these changes. As noted below in Other errors#3, I really am asking for comments, not for others to make these changes. (And the error in Other errors#2 is too complicated for someone not familiar with article to fix it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm the editor who began making these changes and using the ESp template. Arthur didn't ask me to. In each case, I evaluated the change and decided if it was something I felt comfortable handling myself. In two cases, it was not, and I passed it over. I'm the primary actor here, not Arthur, so discussion should not be focused on him. Most of these are obvious errors, test edits or even vandalism, and it's clear they should be fixed. This conversation verges on the suggestion that obvious errors and vandalism shouldn't be corrected if they are suggested in the wrong venue. If IAR ever had an application, it would be to oppose that suggestion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Amen, and I am also the actor here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading Proxying (which language also appears in WP:EVADE), I realize I had thought the proscription was stronger. I no longer believe that the creation of a to-do list is in violation of even the spirit of the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO Jess its not you that did anything wrong nor did Arthur but there are people in this project who are looking for a reason to block him. WP:EVADE doesn't even cover this situation but a couple of editors are attempting to interpret that it does. In fact it says specifically that the changes need not be automatically reverted if they are beneficial to the project and "the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" which you did. So although Arthur may have posted that some of these needed to be done, he was neither directing any editor do it nor doing anything innapropriate. This whole situation is just a classic case of one editor trying to make beneficial changes and some others that don't like them trying to get them into trouble. We should be more worried about making improvements to the project than tattling on editors who are trying to do them. If the edits are beneficial they should be done period. Not this well you can't do them because there is an overarching, overreaching broadly construed ban on this topic that makes it so no one can make a change to that topic at all. Its absolutely ridiculous and this kind of stupid infighting is the sort of thing that makes people not want to edit Wikipedia. So you Jess and Arthur have nothing to be ashamed of or sorry for. The other miscreants talking here and leaving notes on Sandstein's talk page tattling need to think more for the project and less about trying to get another high output and knowledgable contributor banned form the project. We have too much of that shit already and it needs to stop. Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

When you have rules, they need to be enforced, for everyone, or else you have corruption. Making the argument that "if the edits are beneficial they should be done period" implies that it's OK to ignore a block or possible block evasion, as long as the edits are useful. No, it's not OK. Rules need to be enforced, or they're meaningless. And for the record, with his clarifying statement, I'm satisfied that Rubin is not trying to evade the current block that's in place. SimpsonDG (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify I tend to agree with what you are saying that we need to employ the rules evenly and judging by the statement on your userpage I would say we largely agree with the state of things in the project. But this is not just a cut and dried case (as many are not) where he was blatantly editing in violation of a sanction. This is at best one of those skirting the edge of the sanction sort of cases. I admit freely that I am in the camp that we should look at the value of the edit being done more than at the editor or the sanction. If the edit added value or removed vandalism then it should be left, if the edit contributes to a pattern of abuse or incmpetence, which these did not, then the sanction should be followed. I know I am in the minority in that belief but that is how I feel. Because that is what is in the best interest of the project. I do not live in a black and white world and I do not believe that these sanctions need to be black and white or all encompassing. I also do not beleive in the "broadly constued" language that is abusively used throughout sanctions and the project. Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_%28number%29&diff=prev&oldid=586561003

   Change of prime=4th to prime=5th on 7 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Already done by someone else.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_Perceptions_Index&diff=586612190&oldid=585577406

   Addition of India (in the front of otherwise alphabetical lists) in Corruption Perceptions Index, and a second anon changing INDIA to India — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Taiwan&diff=586486692&oldid=584656749

   Access date set before issue date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:73_%28number%29&diff=next&oldid=488294496

   At least per WP:NOTHERE, but I don't see _anything_ there. It's an old edit, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   The full diff is here. His comments aren't great, but they're on topic at least. Since it's an ip, it's probably stale anyway. Probably best to leave it unless it stirs up problems later.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done Got the wrong ip before. Removed the comments. Ip is probably stale.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=101_%28term%29&diff=586769863&oldid=564105316

   I don't even know why that's on my watchlist, but the anon change is, at best, a mistaken summary of the previous sentence. I'll look into this in more detail later even if someone reverts the anon change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Other errors

1. In 2013, John Cornforth's death is listed as 14 December. In his article, it's listed as 8 December, and it's sourced there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2. In Ring (mathematics), the term change of rings is both redlinked and meaningless; it should just be removed or changed to localisation, depending on exactly how the sentence is written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium&diff=586600081&oldid=585202228

   In Millennium, incomplete change of a remark set off by parentheses to one set off by commas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Not done: This change looks right to me. The paren removed doesn't seem to have a matching end paren (unless I missed it).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry. Neither version looks great, but I suppose this can wait. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

4. In Bell's theorem, 1930's should be replaced by 1930s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internal_Revenue_Service&diff=586405366&oldid=567119876

   In Talk:Internal Revenue Service, looks like a legal threat. (Need to check for other references to that patent for cleanup; haven't found any, yet, but perhaps in Wikipedia search) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Something more interesting than WP:THIS and WP:THAT...

..., namely the axiom of choice!

Do you recall that I had a proposal for an article on the equivalence of the existence of group structure on all nonempty sets and AC a year or so ago?

I didn't know what to do with it, toss it or do something else. So, somewhat against your advice, I submitted it to "Articles for Creation". To my surprise it was accepted within a couple of hours, so here it is. There are a couple of issues with references. I posted a question over at Carl since you were on "vacation". Could you have a look? Best regards, YohanN7 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the first Cohen model (M[{a₀, a₁, a₂, ...}]) for the axiom of choice might work, but I don't if I can find a reference for the (stronger) statement that there is no partition of the set into finite sets of cardinality greater than 1. (You are more likely to find that in the literature than what you had originally, I would think.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears as the first (same as standard?) Cohen model does the trick. Could you check out this link, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/12973/does-every-non-empty-set-admit-a-group-structure-in-zf/12988#12988, and say if I'm on the right track? There is a reply post with 17 votes that is fairly detailed. I appreciate your help! YohanN7 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That proof looks good. However, I don't really see the example as helpful in Wikipedia. The proof shows that if X is an infinite Dedekind-finite set, then X ∪ ω does not admit a (cancellative quasi-)group structure. That seems a simpler example, in the sense of requiring less work to confirm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@YohanN7:. More interesting, in a sense, is that if there is an infinite Dedekind-finite set, there is another one which does admit a group structure. If X is Dedekind-finite, then E(X) (the set of all finite subsets of X) is also Dedekind-finite, and admits the operation of symmetric difference as a group operation. (I think this is sufficiently non-controverial, and I am an expert, that you might use this diff as reference.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I already use the symmetric difference to show that AC -> group structure in the article. What is lacking in the article is a model of ZF with sets that admit no group structure, or rather a reference where the reader can find such a model. I apologize if I was unclear about this. YohanN7 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Given any non-well-orderable set X, the proof (that ~AC implies there exists a set without a group structure) gives a specific set on which no group structure can exist, namely X ∪ ℵ(X). (Actually, the proof doesn't construct that set, but it produces a set with the same cardinality.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Justice Talk page

Hey - I'm still learning about Wikipedia, and I hope you can help me with something. I see that you removed dates on section headings for the Institute for Justice talk page. I recently edited the page, adding about 50 references, changing the tone to reflect NPV, adding information, etc. The new article is probably 95% new material. The first several topics on the talk page refer to the older version of the article. Is it possible to archive those topics? Would it be a good idea to do so? Or is it best practice to leave the older topics in place? Thanks! James Cage (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@James Cage: I assume the previous dated section headers were from automated (or Twinkle) messages which post the current month. There is no need for both a month and a topic.

I've never seen an article talk page archived by topic; some Wikipedia talk pages are, though. I see no need to archive, although you might insert a note on the talk page that the article was significantly rewritten as of a certain date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. It may be that it's okay as is. Thanks again. If you see any issues with the article itself, or any general suggestions, please let me know. Best - James Cage (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
Message added 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All the best. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)