Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 8 July 2008

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

Hereditarily countable sets

I thought surely that, if the countable union of countable sets is countable, then the transitive closure of a hereditarily countable set is countable. I was curious about the converse. But Consequences of AC says something surprising - the latter statement is form 172, and not only is it totally unsure of its relation to former (31), but the latter might even imply full AC. Eh?

Now, I just now realised that in the actual statement of 172, the notion of "hereditarily countable" is not quite Jech's definition, and that in fact I myself had made the same mistake in the Misplaced Pages article. Therefore I wonder if Consequences has used a strange definition and arrived at a strange conclusion, or whether I have missed something else.

Can you shed any light on this? Thanks. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not immediately. I'm presently away from home, trying to take care of matters for my father's surgery tommorrow, and I think I'd need to look at a hardcopy of the book, and possibly at some personal notes, to be sure. As this is not really a Misplaced Pages-related question, have you asked the other co-author of Consequences? His E-mail is on the site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious then, hmm. I have emailed him with the issue. Thank you for your time, and my well-wishes to your father. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Howard agrees as well, and says he will add it to the list of updates. He doesn't know about the converse (172 -> 31). Cheers, --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Show another disease/syndrome article where the reality is in question

See Fibromyalgia, specifically Controversies Ward20 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Multiple chemical sensitivity Ward20 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of those at least have recognition as a syndrome, even if the cause isn't apparent. Morgellen's hasn't reached that state yet, in that (at least some of) the symptoms haven't been seen except by "true believers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

School bullying

Any reasons, why my edit got reverted? Volkov 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not sourced, and may not be true. Victims can be chosen for not being in the in-crowd, or for mental characteristics (being a nerd), or for physical disability, or for being in the wrong place and the right time. I don't recall any instances of victims being chosen by size, other than the general tendancy to select smaller people who may not be able to defend themselves. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove that big about Mexican slang #41?

It was not vandalism, it's true. I almost got killed not knowing that traveling through Mexico.

The spanish page has it with references: http://es.wikipedia.org/Cuarenta_y_uno

My Spanish isn't adequate to tell if that's a valid reference (aka WP:RS) or a humor page. However, if you include it with the reference, I won't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You just reverted..

I made two edits to The Game. You reverted both with no explanation. The reference does not show that the game is currently played by a certain number (which is a weasel words number basically). What was wrong with me altering the text there? Second edit expanded on the context for the XKCD reference, making some commentary on it. What is wrong with that edit?--ZincBelief (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "First edit qualifies as WP:WEASEL, second is WP:SYN or unsourced; Undid revision 219338898 by ZincBelief (talk))" '. Although the latter comic contained the message "You just won the game. It's OK. You're free!" which is outside of the normal rules.' First edit notes that the XKCD comic's text. It is correct to say that Winning is not in the rules. The rules being those shown at the top of the article, which do not mention winning. Second edit is unsourced?/introduces point of view. Is that a joke? This is one source which gives a Weasel Words figure for the time it was written. It doesn't give a source for the current number of players. To establish a consistent number you would need more than one source. You could say "In January 2008 it was said..." --ZincBelief (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you want the article deleted, so I expect this explains your behaviour. Reverting multiple edits should be done responsibly with careful thought given to the content changes inherent and at least a brief explanation of the reasons.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it still seems the article should be deleted, but I'm in favor of improving it. Your edits do not qualify as improving it. (The source doesn't say that thousands are playing, it says that thousands have played. Putting in "at some time" changes the meaning considerably.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'Oops - you lose. Confused? It's actually a pretty simple idea, once you get the hang of it. But be warned, once you join hundreds of thousands of people around the world trying to outsmart and out-think each other, there's no going back.' This is the actual text. --ZincBelief (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Witness relations from second before first palne hit WTC

What was wrong about it again? Witness relation is not strong enough from political reason? Propaganda hits back? The name of person is not fake. This is real men and there are more who heard the explosion. Is he not true enough for you?? http://en.wikipedia.org/William_Rodriguez

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building.

Witness relations from second before first palne hit WTC

What was wrong about it again? Witness relation is not strong enough from political reason? Propaganda hits back? The name of person is not fake. This is real men and there are more who heard the explosion. Is he not true enough for you?? http://en.wikipedia.org/William_Rodriguez

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? We only have his word that it's a few (not 15) seconds before the sound of the impact reached him from above, and we don't have an accurate time for his observation, even in his reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Countable set

Dear Arthur,

I made a mistake when I wrote on the continuum hypothesis in the article countable set. I should have added that A must be countable for there to exist no set having greater cardinality than A and lesser cardinality than P(A) . I am sorry but you don't have to get angry about it.

Topology Expert (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I only edited the GCH section. Nonetheless, as I noted in Talk:Continuum hypothesis, that the following are not equivalent in the absence of AC:

• ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}=\aleph _{1}}$, ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}\leq \aleph _{1}}$, ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}<\aleph _{2}}$
• There is no cardinal m such that ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}<m<2^{\aleph _{0}}}$
• ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}\not >\aleph _{1}}$
• ${\displaystyle 2^{\aleph _{0}}\not \geq \aleph _{2}}$

Which is to be considered the continuum hypothesis is an interesting question.

But, that being said, the section you added was much too long for this article. Perhaps there should be a link to continuum hypothesis, but the details should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Universe article.

Hi there!

I added a section to the discussion, and await your input.

Thanks! InternetMeme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Don't revert to edits that remove things from the 18th century page. The Washington Portrait is extremely famous, and Christopher Smart was published in over 7 languages and was published as far as the US and Canada during his time. His contributions to Children's Literature and Anglican theology, especially with his production of a hymnal and a major translation of the Psalms (one of three major 18th century translations of the work), mean that he is far more than a "local" figure.

If you continue to pursuit, you are acting to edit war. Cease and desist now. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't presented arguments on the talk page, and the edit summaries of the removals seemed to be more in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Screw axis

Hi there, I've spotted your contributions on the back pain, spinal manipulation, etc pages. I could do with a mathematician to cast an eye over the screw axis page, to ensure things are fairly consistent and maybe point out where more attention is needed. I have recently merged the helical axis page, which I created (I am into biomechanics, but am not a mathematician), into the screw axis page. Thanks in advance.Davwillev (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Preventative war" or "preventative war"

Hi re our respective edits on David Irving. When you changed Preventative to preventative you shifted the link from preventative war to Preemptive war and changed the meaning of the article. As the latter article puts it "While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable." Was this your intent or was it that grammatically p is correct and I should have put the link as ]? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case of the first character of a Misplaced Pages article is not significant, so changing the case wouldn't have caused the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I see, on further examination it was an extra "ta". I've changed Preventative war to redirect to preventive war not preemptive war Jonathan Cardy (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

King Rising

Could you please explain why you replaced a nonsourced paragraph to the article King Levitation without consulting others on the talk page?--Iclavdivs (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced. The video is a valid source, if available without license agreements. Just because I don't have a copy, doesn't mean it's not valid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

There was a call to improve the introduction of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, yet you keep reverting a perfectly good intro. The other intro makes it sound like a warzone talking about what a big disaster the community is.

Whats wrong with the intro you keep reverting?68.111.172.226 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Affluent" is unsourced. You also appear to be very near an editor banned because of vandalism (redefining the boundaries of Anaheim Hills). Perhaps you should edit elsewhere before you make the same edits as a banned editor.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should not accuse someone of something when you have no idea who they are. Ok. Assume they are innocent until you can prove them guilty. That means, dont revert all their edits. Because you dont like them.

And affluent can be inferred since AH is the 2nd wealthiest place in the county. Ive seen it used in several articles about poorer places. 68.111.172.226 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be banned user:Ericsaindon2. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Prove it please. Just because you dont like what I have to say doesn't mean you can just assume everyone is a banned user. Stop abusing your power. 68.111.172.226 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

I do not know who you are, but you must be very confident in your opinions to enforce them in the first paragraph of an important Misplaced Pages article WITHOUT EVEN BOTHERING TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF MY ASSERTIONS ON THE TALK PAGE! -Zinbielnov65.93.55.70 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I assessed your assertion on the talk page as invalid and previously having been considered invalid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Check this 'pancake fall' theory: 19. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf It's fake. Where is here calculation of velocity total falling mass according to kinetic energy transformation? We have there only kinetic equation of the upper part in appendix II on the base with rotation as additional factor. Where is any description of kinetic energy transformation of the lower parts after upper base impact? I'm looking for this and I cannot find. I sure that you're are aware that is a key point of all scepticism. So tell me about. Send me any scientific document that explains this part... I'm really open minded. I just want to be as sure as you are. Now I just think that it is obvious that such fall should take more than 15 seconds if no explosives were put.

Here maybe?: Eagar, Thomas W.; Christopher Musso (2001). Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. JOM, 53 (12). The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. Retrieved on 2006-05-02.

But this is not on the internet!!

But here 46. Eagar, Thomas (2002). The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective. NOVA. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

Another 'conspiracy' theories!!!

So where are the physical equations from the fall? Where in transformation of kinetic energy into movement in the lower levels?

Not any link from that more of 74 shows me that.

(Astropata) 02:34, 32 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, www.ae911truth.net, as I stated on the talk page. I am not a civil engineer nor an architect (Mech. Engineering undergraduate student), but this website goes to great lenths to elaborate on the unmistakable similarity between the WTC collapses and the controlled demolitions which the authors of the site and cosignors of the petition oversee as part of their job descriptions. No steel-framed building has ever spontaneously collapsed in the manner of WTC. If you are indeed open-minded then please pay a brief visit to this website - I think it is sufficiently compelling that practising professionals are risking their credibility to make the assertions. As for consensus, I don't see why you insist on being sure that CDH is true in order to withdraw the claim that it is widely believed to be false - the minority of engineers and architects that believe in CDH is not tiny, and worst of all the source used to claim that it is is from a BIASED PHILOSOPHY Article!! If you are indeed privy to the subject matter on a scientific level, I don't understand why you wouldn't be favourable toward using a scientific or poll citation for such an important claim as the one I am attempting to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinbielnov (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that shortly after you reverted my edit of the CDH page, you also consigned another article of mine to deletion. There is nothing wrong with the article, except its brevity, which if anything would merit the 'stub' tag in my opinion, unless you were under the impression that my edits to Misplaced Pages are of low calibre in general and ought to be eradicated. Please explain your positions, I am also open-minded, hence I would greatly like to see Misplaced Pages as a source of unbiased facts, even when bias exists in the real world. People ought to make up their own minds; I don't think Misplaced Pages is meant to be a one-stop information shop, conclusions included. Zinbielnov (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but the claim that these collapses were spontaneous is almost farcical - I seem to remember two large jet liners full of fuel crashing into them first. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

National Council Against Health Fraud

Thanks for fixing my edit - I would have sworn I'd deleted it before saving. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

be real -- no consensus, not keep

I'm really confused as to what this means. Is this tied to words on "Simple English"? Is this a general vote on keep/delete mKR article? Could you please tell me what's going on? Rhmccullough (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

21st century

Just a courtesy note: I undid your last revision on 21st century, because it looks like you accidentally undid a revert of vandalism rather than of the vandalism itself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dasavathaaram

• No direct disrespect, but I've been working on the page for months now, trying to bring it up to a GA Level. Currently I'm waiting for the fan craze from the IP addresses to die down before I resume my major editing. It would be most kind of you, if you allow me to proceed maybe for a month constructing the article, which I and other editors will source adequuately.

Please also consider sourcing the article yourslef. Furthermore there are significant mistakes and spam and false figures given in the version you've saved. Please kindly add the tags of "facts" and "plot" on my version.

Thanks,

Universal Hero (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unless I've misread the diffs (a definite possibility, but...) you've misspelled a number of words. The changes

• (spelling) Discovering → Undercovering (possibly Uncovering?)
• (spelling) renounce → renownce
• (grammar) the "sand lorries" paragraph seems to be no longer correct grammatical English, although the "It's too late" has a questionable tone.

I'm sorry about reverting the numbers and the questionable external links.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought I could just make an addition. I attended both conferences and was one of the 30. I simply thought that I could make the addition. Am I not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.23.88 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we need a source for that, too. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some odds and ends

Greetings friend and thank you for making me think harder on the money article. It no doubt can still use some work and could include other things in that section we have been working on. I wanted to mention Willard Gibbs and Howard Scott to you and also Frederick Soddy... all people that I think you will find of interest. I have no doubt you know all about Willard Gibbs. Scott based his ideas on energy accounting directly on the work of Willard Gibbs. Frederick Soddy was a brilliant man. His Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (George Allen & Unwin 1926) Is still considered a classic in regard to money and how it works. Regards skip sievert (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Would repeatedly uploading useless images/images with no license be considered vandalism or annoying? The Llama! (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless images? Not really.

Images with no license? Not exactly, but it's still grounds for blocking.

But don't ask me. I've been censured for declaring actions vandalism in a disputed situation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone in particular inspire this question? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:2005 work camp.JPG, in particular, clearly has an attempted to declare {{PD-self}}. Please replace your tag with the appropriate template, although you can add PD-self disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

oops

Hi Arthur -

I've deleted my comment and your reply from the article talk page and moved it here. I want to reply but also want to avoid emphasizing it. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to restore it to the original location.

Arthur, I know you meant this as a joke (on the side of darkness SRA "true believers"), but it's not funny or helpful, it's insulting. These debates are plenty difficult and emotional already, please don't add fuel to the fire. I intend no antagonism with this comment, just a sincere request to keep the discussion on an even keel. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit obvious that it was intended as self-sarcasm, to imply that many of the editors on this article have expressed the opinion that the editors with opposing views are evil, and more may feel that way. But I guess it didn't go over very well. (If you look at the history, you'll see I entered it in one pass, rather than entering "darkness" and then striking it out.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I did see that you intended it as a joke, having done the strike-out at the same time as you wrote the comment, but I didn't get that you were including yourself in the joke. I must be working too hard. I didn't mean to make a big deal of it; my apologies for any possible misunderstanding. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reversions of my reversions of Hu12's edits

Please revert yourself. The links removed by Hu12 were appropriate and not spam. There is a thread at ANI about Hu12's odd behaviour today. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pending a more complete review (probably within 5 hours), they look like linkspam to me. You may revert, of course, remembering 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you join the discussion at ANI before you carry out any further reversions. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you saw this on ANI, but there has already been discussion at Wikiproject Spam about Hu12 and the Gresham College links, it is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.gresham.ac.uk. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I tracked it down, thanks. Because of the multiple edit conflicts, I'm making the following statement, rather than self-reverting my reversions:

• Any of my reverts of DuncanHill's reverts of Hu12's reverts of (oh, nevermind). Any of my reverts between 13:55 and 14:00 on 1 July 2008 (UTC) may be reverted without it counting against WP:3RR. I still think many of the links shouldn't be in the articles, but not all of my reverts were carefully studied.

I think that's the best I can do at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think that's really decent of you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So Arthur, what is it that looks like linkspam in an external link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic of the article in which the link appears? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With some effort, I could probably find many such links on each topic, although perhaps not that many "media" (audio/video/podcast). e and π would provide more of challenge to my (limited) search engine skills, but I'm sure that the lectures are there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So what I was asking was: In what way do they look like "linkspam"? You said they looked like "linkspam". They don't look that way at all to me. Your answer didn't make any attempt to answer that question. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not exactly linkspam, but seems an arbitrary choice among many otherwise acceptable links. WP:COI seems to suggest that we should avoid them, in most cases, unless they were the only acceptable link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoid WHAT? Avoid that particular content? Avoid having that particular person be the one to post that content? Why would one CHOOSE among links rather than post more than one? Is there some rule saying each article must have at most one external link? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem. We don't want Misplaced Pages to become a venue for promoting the site (unless there is something unique about it), and so we should seek out other references. However, not being aware of other lecture amalgamation sites, we'd have to search for references for each article. I still don't think it's in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, is there any chance at all that you could answer the particular question that I actually asked? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It appeared to be linkspam, and, even in context, some of the links don't appear appropriate, as being one of hundreds of comperable links, and originally submitted by someone apparently affiliated with the college. But, it clearly wasn't intended as spam, and it's still debatable on an individual article basis whether the links are helpful. The ones I checked didn't appear to be, but I hadn't realized that Hu12 had gone rogue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the question I was asking was "Avoid what?" after you said we should "avoid them". Specifically WHAT was it you were saying we should avoid? Not in general, but in the PARTICULAR case above where you wrote that we should "avoid them"? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Among the potentially hundreds of lectures by respected academics on the topic, we should avoid those submitted by an affiliate of the venue. Is that beter? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better---thanks.

I think it depends on the actual content. In most cases, those submitted by an affiliate of the venue are spam, but one should judge them to be spam AFTER looking at what they are, not ONLY by noting that the person who posted them is affiliated with the venue. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress in Physics

So, I am unclear of what type of "proof" do I need to bring that this journal and its editor are examples of crank science? Wasn't the exchange with Dr. Bruhm sufficient? DS1000 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's sufficient that Dr. Bruhm thinks it's crank science. For that matter, I think it's crank science. Beyond that, it becomes a "he said / she said" exchange, and we'd have to weigh the respective credentials, which is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages. The categorization as fringe science was part of the AfD decision last year; if the article didn't include the category, it would be subject to immediate deletion; but that doesn't support including the word "fringe" in the article without quoting someone.

OK, can I at least put back in "fringe" science journal in the description? It is in line with the category...DS1000 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of RELATED and RELEVANT Links

Arthur,

To be clear, I added the link for IRS Appeals because not enough people know about the Appeals process.

In regards to your example, the IRS was discussed in the article "Income" - especially in the context of the last paragraph of the "Meaning for U.S. Income Tax Purposes" section ("The system seeks to tax individuals in a way that is fair, or at least in a way that appears to be fair. By claiming to assign tax burdens according to how much “income” a person has, the system purports to tax all taxpayers evenly."). How could the only external link you deem valid on the "Income" entry be to an Economic Calendar on CNN.com?

How can it be "unrelated" to topics like "IRS," "Offer in Compromise," or "Tax lien" at a minimum. Are you suggesting that a link to the "IRS Property Auction" or a "Tax Protester FAQ" are more appropriate than a link to the Appeals Office? Perhaps you've never received a letter from the IRS and had no idea what the next step was ... So few know few know about what the Appeals Office what can do for them - only 100,000 taxpayers every year take advantage of this alternative to going to court - that's practically 0%! Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are eligible every year and don't even know it!

A self-service, customer-oriented product like Misplaced Pages should be thinking about what kind of information its readers are looking for when they consult the site ... they are looking for a jumping-off point because they have no frame of reference and they look to Misplaced Pages to give it to them.

At the very least, this link could be of use on the IRS, Offer in Compromise, Tax lien, Tax court and Tax levies articles. If you find the reference to the Appeals Office to be too tangential on the other pages, that's fine, but these articles cannot be considered "unrelated."

Is there any way to appeal your decision?

Alcora (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are too many links in most of the articles, as it is. For "Income", you have to go through 3 steps to see the potential relevance; Income → Income Tax in the United States → IRS → IRS Appeals. (Furthermore the link to the appeals process is on the front page of the IRS site, unless I've accidentally reconfigured my view of irs.gov.) Similarly for Appeal. IRS is possible. For Offer in Compromise and Tax lien, a link to the directly relevant page at irs.gov is probably better, which probably links to that appeals page. As for an appeal, if, after reading WP:EL, you still feel it's appropriate, try the Misplaced Pages spam notice board (to which I do not have a hot-link on this computer), Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Taxation, or writing an (article) RfC. As this covers multiple articles, the respective article talk pages are not really the correct venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

why did you rollback my edit?--

why did you rollback my edit? i don't believe that is the purpose of the function.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you as there is no reason to link to uncy on talk pages which mock the subject. So WP:NOT#FORUM and this also applies.--Otterathome (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly doesn't apply, so your deletions seemed to be arbitrary deletiions of talk page sections, which is vandalism, so rollback is quite appropriate. In fact, you haven't yet given a reason, unless you which to quote the "no attack sites" guideline, which has not received acceptance.

Rollback is quite appropriate, and I'll continue to use it unless you can point to an appropriate WIkipedia policy or guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now reported at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User_reverting_bad_links.--Otterathome (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:TALK it gives me the permission to remove those comments.--Otterathome (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can delete disruptive comments which are irrelevant to editing the article, but the only reason these are disruptive is because of you, and they are not entirely irrelevant. Your WP:BLP assertion is bogus, although the absence of comment on WP:BLPN is disturbing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any comment can be removed if it does not help improve the article.--Otterathome (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain your removal of the comment from Talk:David Icke, nor does it excuse your 3RR violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The link is intentionally fictional and useless, and linking to potentially libel information is violating WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lord bharat

why are undoing the edit??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord bharat (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced commentary. If it were relevant to the film (and there was a source for that fact), and if it had a source, it could be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Please unblock Betacommand immediately and pass the situation off to uninvolved administrators. Surely I don't need to educate somebody as encultured as you as to why it is a singularly terrible idea to block people for perceived incivility towards yourself? east.718 at 14:06, July 6, 2008

There are (probably) no uninvolved administrators. And the incivilty I was reporting is toward the anon (revert troll). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction (although I don't share your cynicism wrt the other part - there are 1,600 of us after all). east.718 at 14:25, July 6, 2008

Help please

Is there a "No pictures on lists" rule? Betacommand keeps removing images from List of recurring characters on seaQuest DSV and then uses his own personal reasoning like it's policy User:Betacommand/Fair use overuse explanation It took a long time to track down decent pictures for those characters and he threatens "re-instertions will lead to a block". Since He was just blocked for doing that will I be blocked for undoing them again? Is it actually against policy or is he just saying what HE thinks should be policy. I try to be polite and go with common sense, but people that use their reasoning like it's the word of God really annoy me. Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; I missed your message among the other disputes. Without checking your specific images, please note that WP:NFCC applies to each image individually and to all images collectively. In other words, if there's only a short paragraph on the character, it's probably not worth an image. Images with more than one character, or images already in use in other articles, are preferred. Etc. The essay is not policy, nor is it necessarily accepted by anyone other than beta and the original author.

Regardless of the present state of WP:NFC, you could be blocked if reinsert images without an appropriately detailed individual rationale for each image. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article was protected for now, but the article is a list of recurring characters from seaQuest, character has a section, each one is between 2-5 paragraphs long and the images are low resolution screen caps with Non-free / fair use media rationale ( for example or ). Is anything missing from it, have they been done right? Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You're being discussed at AN/I. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

I have extended your block to 1 week because you have already been blocked four times for edit warring in the last 6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_a_block I have reset the block to 42 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Arthur Rubin, this is to inform you that an ArbCom case asking for you to be desysoped has been opened at here. Bstone (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Arthur_Rubin_desysop, Arthur, see my comment in clerk notes section. If you wish to comment, post here and we'll move your comment there. It's also possible an arb will ask us to unblock you and limit edits to the RFAR case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to soon for an ArbCom case to me, also. I'm considering resigning sysop anyway, as I rarely use the mop, provided that I can keep AWB and a few other related tags. This edit war relates to policy, though, as my "opponent"'s actions have the effect of vandalism unless the uncyclopedia links are to be removed from talk pages. I'm not saying that my opponent is vandalising, but his edits have the effect of removing talk page discussion, and should be reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want that copied to the case request as a statement? Also, I think AWB etc. are fully independent of admin status (or they were last time I checked). Avruch 00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of points Arthur, if you were to give up your adminship at this point, it would count as controvsersial circumstances so you would have to run through RfA again. I would suggest initiating an RfC to get some outside opinions - it certainly wouldn't hurt and you will probably learn from it. It's good to get community opinions once in a while, and I strongly believe it could help here. No point rushing to any decisions - do what's right for you. Would you like to make a statement so I can copy it over to WP:RFArb? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood in regard "controverial circumstances", and Sysop automatically gives AWB, rollback, immune from incidential IP block, Twinkle, Huggle, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Arthur Rubin

I really don't see a need for an emergency desysoping, unless someone thinks I'm going to go WP:ROUGE. There is little consensus that I've abused any Admin functions other than rollback; there's some question about my block(s) of Betacommand, but if all the admins who have blocked Betacommand were desysoped, we'd have a much smaller sysop set. Perhaps a user RfC can suggest actions I can take to avoid unnecessary disputes. (Considering some of the censored people editing the encyclopedia, there may very well be necessary disputes from time to time.) If Arbcom were to take the case, my opponents in whatever actions are considered questionable (which have not yet been named, as of about a hour ago) would be necessary parties. But I don't really see any attempt at dispute resolution yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)