Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arthur Rubin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:42, 15 March 2008 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →March 2008: vandalism of my talk page noted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:52, 3 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,836 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024) (bot 
Line 3: Line 3:
|algo = old(28d) |algo = old(28d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}{{archive-nav|%(year)d}}
}} }}
{| {|
Line 8: Line 9:
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|- |-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''28''' days are automatically archived to ''']''' . Sections without timestamps are not archived. |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''28''' days are automatically archived to ''']''' . Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|- |-
|} |}
|| {{archive box|<center>] ] ] ]</center>}} || {{archive box|<center>] <br/> ] ] ] ]<br/>] ] ] ]<br/>] ] ] ]<br/>] ] ] ] <br/>] ] ] ]</center>}}
|} |}

{{User:Arthur Rubin/Vacation}} {{User:Arthur Rubin/Vacation}}
]


== TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991 ==
== Reverts such as to Palomar Observatory ==


I am now proud owner of a ] account!
Please stop reverting helpful additions. Please step back and consider whether you are reverting these changes for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, or to win an arguement. I have tried to make articles more relevant to a global readership. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:17, January 6, 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
__TOC__


== Something ==
Hi Arthur,
I agree with 86.147.253.126. You reverted a change I added as a violation of neutral point of view, but you provided no help whatsoever on how violates NPOV. If you look at the talk pages, you'll see that I had already asked for feedback on NPOV questions. ] (]) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Hello there, dear sir. I would like to inform you that there is no need to have removed my edit to the year ]. The edit that I made to this page is a relevant edit. If you were to have read the page, you would have known that the actress who I edited onto the page was born in 1993, so technically it is relevant information. If you see this, please take note.
== ] and ] ==
Thank you,
The Editor.


P.S. My account is both more than 4 days old and I have made more than 10 edits, so there is no real need to do this. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:11, November 25, 2019 (UTC)</small>
Hi Arthur. I have your earlier reverts of ] as those changes were made by a decidedly banned editor. Crum was reverting these edits per policy as banned editors have no right to edit WP. If you wish to stand by these changes, please be aware of the situation and clarify that you are standing by these edits in your own right and not supporting a banned editor. Thanks - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:I do stand by the edits, regardless of whether truthy is a banned editor, for which I see no evidence. &mdash; ] | ] 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:: The evidence is checkuser evidence, and I cannot reveal it per ]. Email me and I'll provide what details I can under the rules - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I'll get back to deciding which parts of the edit I believe to be clearly independently justified, probably tomorrow. He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions, though. &mdash; ] | ] 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::::"He wasn't even blocked at the time of the reversions" &mdash; you may want to double-check that. ] (]) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
Banned users are banned, period. If you restore their edits you are violating the ban. ] | ] 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


] from the past month (October 2024).
:Actually, that is wrong. restoring their edits mean you take responsiblility for them. Otherwise,a banned user could prevent insertion of correct information in an article by inserting it themselves. In this case, the McMartin edits made the article better than it was, and the merge request '''had''' previously closed in the other article. However, I'll check the other edits in detail and verify their correctness before I reinsert. &mdash; ] | ] 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


]
== 1st Year of Millenia ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
umm dude, most people recognize 2000 as the 1st year of the current millenium, meaning that 3000 is beginning of next millenium, 1000 is beginning of 2nd millenium, etc. though if we were to be looking at this mathematically, you would be correct. however, due to wide recognition of 2000 as the first year, we could just say the 1st century was an oddball and only had 99 years.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
since i respect other people's opinions, i won't keep changing the year range on the millenia/century pages. thanks for listening. --] (]) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
|]
:Wrong. Misplaced Pages convention, and the common perception in most centuries before the ], was that centuries and millennia include the 00/000 year at the end. If you disagree, please get a consensus for change in ] before you attempt to change the articles. &mdash; ] | ] 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== The book of Hungarian orthography not being a source ==
:] ]


] '''Oversighter changes'''
Hi! Why do you think that the book of the Hungarian spelling rules, published by the ] in 1984 does not count as a source? Is there some criteria about the source having to be in English? – ] (]) 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:] ]
:A wikipedia article is not a source. The organisation might be, but we only have the editor's word on that. You need a publication by that organization, even if only on paper, and even if only in the Hungarian language. &mdash; ] | ] 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
::'''A magyar helyesírás szabályai''' (The Rules of the Hungarian Spelling) ''is'' a publication. It's a book. The author is the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA). And this book has been uploaded to the Hungarian Wikisource. I just thought it would be useful if I attached a link to the online version of the book. – ] (]) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.


] '''Technical news'''
:::You quoted the ] as the source, rather than the publication (or at least, that's all I saw as the link). As I don't speak ], I can't comment further. As far as I'm considered, the Hungarian Wikisource qualifies at least as a courtesy URL (an ''unofficial'', but credible, copy of the source). If you like, we can work out the proper citation format so that it's clear to all ''exactly'' what the source is. Perhaps the source should be:
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}
:::{{cite book|
author=Magyar Tudományos Akadémia|
authorlink=Hungarian Academy of Sciences|
title=A magyar helyesírás szabályai |
url=http://hu.wikisource.org/A_magyar_helyes%C3%ADr%C3%A1s_szab%C3%A1lyai/Egy%C3%A9b_tudnival%C3%B3k |
format=courtesy copy |
chapter=Egyéb tudnivalók |
language = ] }}
:::You may add other fields from {{tl|cite book}}, but that should make it clear what we're talking about. &mdash; ] | ] 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Arbitration'''
== WP:BOLLOCKS ==
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]


----
Hi Arthur,
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->


== Books & Bytes – Issue 65 ==
RE:
The basis of the conspiracy might be bollocks, but the section is in the article for a reason, and so the basis of the conspiracy should be there so that readers can check the sources. Do you think there is a different basis for the conspiracy theory, or do you think that the conspiracy theory's basis should be left out of the section dedicated to it? I don't understand. Note that I did not claim the basis to be accurate, I merely provided references to it. No one has questioned Keith Eaton's credibility or that of <i>the structural engineer</i> ] (]) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
:Yes, I do believe the conspiracy theory's basis ''should'' be left out of ], especially since there's no source that that ''is'' the basis. The ''the structural engineer'' article is clearly not reliable for the question of what the basis might be. Perhaps it ''should'' be in ], but I'm really not convinced that an engineering journal whose name is not in standard title case (i.e., the Structural Engineer) can be a credible engineering journal. But that could be your error, rather than that of the journal. &mdash; ] | ] 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
]</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
Issue 65, September – October 2024
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
* Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Misplaced Pages Library
* Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
* Tech tip: Mass downloads
<big>''']'''</big>
</div>
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=27730094 -->


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
::It's pretty easy to look at the webpage for the journal and see how they use letter case.{{cite journal
| title = New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster
| journal = the structural engineer
| volume = 80
| pages = 6
| url = http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/files/se/SE172002.pdf
| date = September 3, 2002}} It's also pretty easy to read Steven Jones' paper and decide for yourself what is the basis for the hypothesis. Are we supposed to assume that readers are just too stupid to make these simple connections upon reading the sources? If you've read it, and disagree, what would you say is the basis? If not, I'd recommend it.


] from the past month (November 2024).
:::The British have different titling conventions, so I probably should withdraw that part of my comment. I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing. As for basis, different ]s undoubtably have different (basises? bases?) for their beliefs. We would certainly need a ''mainstream'' reliable source as to what the basis for the conspiracy theories might be. &mdash; ] | ] 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


]
::::"I've read a number of Jones's papers, and found them unconvincing." - I don't think you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source should have any effect on that editor's decision about whether to let stand a contribution that another editor has made. The point behind providing sources is to allow the reader to make his own judgment. So I suspect you'll withdraw that argument too. That leaves me with the explanation that a mainstream source would have to make the claim that the molten metal is foundational to the controlled demolition hypothesis. But this puts an undue burden on contributors to WP: rather than enforcing "No original research," you are enforcing "mainstream research only," which cuts away a vast amount of knowledge. You are making it difficult for me to assume good faith on your part. Should I give up? ] (]) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
:::::I found Jones's papers unconvincing to the point that they make me question the credibility of the journal they're contained in. In fact, I find the claim of ''any'' review (not to mention ''peer'' review) incredible, for the papers that I've read. If you wish to point me to one of his papers which survives basic arithmetic checking, I ''may'' reconsider. &mdash; ] | ] 08:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:::::: Whoa dude, so do you believe that an editor's skepticism about material in a source justifies that editor's decision *to delete* a contribution that another editor has made? I've actually never read a Steven Jones paper in a journal. What journal did you look at? What basic arithmetic checking did it fail? And also, you didn't address the question of original research versus mainstream research.] (]) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
:::::::The question of whether a source is reliable is based on editor discretion; if a journal contains too many articles with clear misstatements of fact, it cannot be considered reliable, even if (claimed to be) ]. In the case of Jones' articles in J911S, they have sufficient arithmetic errors to confirm that J911S is not reliable. "Unconvincing" was the wrong word; "containing clear misstatements of fact" is closer. &mdash; ] | ] 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
::::::::Do you have sources to back up your claim that Jones' paper contains arithmetic errors? Or do you rely on the reader's ability to do math? I can do math too, but I would need to know what calculations you refer to in order to verify that he's in error. Also, J911S doesn't mean much to me. Can you explain what you're talking about when you use that code? ] (]) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
|]

}}
:::::::::J911S = Journal of 911 studies at http://journalof911studies.com/ . As for the arithmetic errors, there's a "mainstream" 911 newsletter, which has a least the same reliablility status and verifies that the "free fall" time is considerably less than Jones claims, and which formulas can be verified at least to academic standards. &mdash; ] | ] 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Ok, feel free to point out the discrepancy between the "mainstream" "free fall time" and that presented in a Jones paper at J911S (as long as you can show that both are talking about the same thing) in the appropriate sections of WP. However, please refrain from using it to reject good information about the evidence that served to help create the controlled demolition hypothesis. ] (]) 01:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


::::::::::::I only need to point out the errors if they were to be included in the article. &mdash; ] | ] 04:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== wp:bio ==

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to confirm the problem with the page I set up. I read through the reasons for the deletion, wp:bio, and the only thing I can come up with is the nobility. So what your saying is that because this person has no published material he is not allowed to have a page? Is there anything I can do to get this page up, i.e., removed his birth date, remove that he is a philosopher? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

] (]) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:No, there's just nothing published ''about'' him. If he had published, even if he then disclaimed copyright, and those publications were discussed in ], then he could have an article. If there were discussion ''about'' him in ], then he probably should have an article. But there's no "there" there. The general "rule" on Misplaced Pages is "verifiability, not truth". There's nothing verifiable (as <u>we</u> define verifiable) about him.
:Prove me wrong. If you can find something to convince me that I'm wrong about him, I'll help you keep the article up (I won't help you much in writing it, but....) &mdash; ] | ] 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Great thanks ==

Hi Arthur,

I appreciate the quick response, I fully understand now. This person though, as I mentioned in my talk, doesn't have any published material, because he doesn't believe in making money from his creative works. So I will contact him and find out if he has any articles discussing him or any groups he has been involved with. Again, thx for the clear response.

] (]) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

== Barry Chamish ==

Mr. Chamish is not an "anti-Semite". He sacrificed his career to expose the criminal operation to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. If you are really Jewish you would be more concerned by the fact that Mr. Pipes and his fellow Trotskyoid Neocon Bolshevik friends are hanging out in the CFR with the likes of James A. Baker III, an open enemy of Israel. Instead, you choose to promote Mr. Pipes' smears against an honest and patriotic Jew. --] (]) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

:Mr. Pipes' commentary on Mr. Chamish appears to be as credible as Mr. Chamish's commentary on associates of Mr. Pipes, at least as far as the references you've used indicate. And I'm not sure I see the relevance of ''either''. You're welcome to add a an {{tl|irrel}} tag to Mr. Pipes commentary, but removal of the tag I added seems to be vandalism. &mdash; ] | ] 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

== also nomination ? ==

They pop up faster than you nominate them: ] (see ). --] (]) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:I think the gearing should be a separate issue, myself. That actually seems a reasonable topic, although not under that ''name''. &mdash; ] | ] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

== Lake ==

Just FYI - I painstaking spent time on a list of lakes to go through and move articles from French, Italian, Spanish, German, and Dutch to proper English titles... and that was the only article which User Docu seemed to want to claim ownership on and revert. ] (]) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But thank you for addressing the issue. ] (]) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sorry about deleting the evidence of ]'s misdeeds, but I was reverting multiple copy/paste moves back and forth. &mdash; ] | ] 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

::I noticed this renaming dispute. It is sad that a "convention" consisting of two short sentences (]) is used as a battle axe to wreak havoc in carefully edited articles. Some names that User:Rarelibra has invented for the titles of various articles are really quite silly if not ridiculous, and are just meant for the wikipedia world. And he did not consistently translate the names of lakes in Scotland, Wales, or Ireland (see ]). I did put the question to him why not. In my opinion it is a mess now. The names were carefully edited and consistent across many articles up till now. The English language wikipedia is not just for the countries where English is spoken as a first language, it is the one wikipedia that crosses all borders of international communication and, therefore, needs to be more careful in its dealing with naming conventions. Even the large German wikipedia, considered in many cases qualitative better than the English version, but for a much smaller German speaking audience, uses for titles the names that are used locally. The National Geographic Atlas of the World uses local names as well. Using the "google count" as measure for naming an article would be much more logical. --] (]) 11:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Moving articles ==

Would you move ] back to where it was and let people discuss the change on talk first? It's highly unusual to do it without inviting other editors to comment first.

BTW, would you detail what you mean with "Docu's misdeeds" (previous section of this page)? Fixing copy-and-paste moves is surely not a misdeed, -- User:Docu

:No, fixing copy/paste moves isn't the misdeed, which I corrected in the ANI section. Moving it from Lake to Lac was the misdeed, per Misplaced Pages naming guidelines. (Furthermore, I think I removed the block to moving it back, although I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to moves.) &mdash; ] | ] 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

::In the article's history, you will find that Darwinek created it with the title "Lac de la Gruyère" , not "Lake of la Gruyère", "Lake de la Gruyère", "Lake Greyerzer", "GreyerzerLake", etc. Such moves need to be considered carefully, otherwise we will end up with articles like (probably based on ]). Looking at rare's pagemove log, I doubt this is being done. -- User:Docu

Would you please move ] back to ] until a move discussion has taken place? -- User:Docu

== Continued reverting at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" ==

By what standard do you remove what I added--well, actually it was another editor who originally added it; I only restored it--yet leave the other external links untouched? Certainly the discussions presented in the journal are of at least as high quality as those still remaining.

Simply to announce as "pathetic" and "laughable" all the submissions available for view at http://journalof911studies.com/ does not make them so. ] (]) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just referenced the "Truther" article, of which I was unaware prior to your mention of it. Thank you. This article does indeed explore the matter of rational questioning of the official version of events regarding 9/11.

What I wonder, though, is why these are two separate articles? And why does the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article make no mention of the "Truther" article? It seems to me these two articles should be cross-referenced in some manner, or even combined, since they deal with the same subject matter.

Regarding the Journal of 9/11 Studies, I wonder if you have reviewed the following article:

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

It is difficult for me to dismiss the arguments this article contains. ] (]) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== Spelling apologize ==

I discovered that I have misspelled your first name (Author instead of Arthur) in the discussion ]. That has now been corrected and I apologize for the misspelling. It was not meant as a offense. --] (]) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

== There being no consensus, MfD result, or reason given for deleting the debate, merging. ==

Bet you this won't stick. - ] (]) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:I agree. But the result was "redirect", which does not exclude a merge. I won't edit war over it, though. &mdash; ] | ] 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:: Actually, "Redirect" does not mean "Merge". Otherwise it would say "Merge and Redirect". <b>]</b> 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
::: There have been disputes about that before, as well. There are also more complicated possible results, such as delete and redirect, or merge and delete (i.e. move to random-space) the redirect. But I don't see ''any'' reason given for removing (rather than archiving) the material. If it were an "attack page", then so would the previous comment. &mdash; ] | ] 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi Arthur,

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for clarifying my close on the AfD above. I tend to err on the side of verboseness when doing closes in order to minimize the chance that they'll be challenged based solely on my status as a non-admin by a user unhappy with the outcome--since I've seen a number of closes noting cleanup, I just followed the pattern there.

I see what you're saying about any such consensus being hypothetical, though, and I'll avoid it in the future. Thanks for the lesson! --]-]] 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sorry about that. Actually, as no one else !voted '''delete''' (or equivalent, '''delete and salt''', '''delete and block article creator''', etc.) and I withdrew the nomination, a speedy close as withdrawn would be quite acceptable, even from a non-admin. I didn't feel comfortable doing it myself. &mdash; ] | ] 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

::Ah. I read your second comment as a change in opinion rather than an explicit withdrawal of the nomination, and so I based the final call on the consensus of the discussion. Ah, well; glad it's all sorted out now :) --]-]] 04:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== Userboxes ==

can you tell me how to get the pro cannabis userbox on my userpage i can't figure out how to do it
thnx ] (]) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
:<nowiki>{{User:Arthur Rubin/User pro-cannabis}}</nowiki> &mdash; ] | ] 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that ] (]) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== Collaboration, Good ==

Thanx...yes, your word "reported" is a good compromise to this situation (better than my word "found"). Thanx ]<sup>]</sup> 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

:Hey there. I just posted something that deserves your attention at: . Nothing serious, but just wanting to clear up your attack on the Linde (1994) paper. Can you acknowledge your (minor) mistake so that we can move on... ]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== ]. ==

I trust you understand the removal of references appears to contradict the foundation of Misplaced Pages's fundamental rules regarding ]. Perhaps this is something you should bring up with at verifiability rules because nothing in the rules stipulates that it is necessary to exclude "dictionaries" and encyclopedic references. In fact, the threshold for inclusion according to WP:V is verifiability which "means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." Currently you have removed many references from the article Venetian Style Shoe. Furthermore you have removed much relevant information. On top of that, the references you removed supported much of the information that was or is currently in the article. One example is the Microsoft 2007 reference which referred to the "loafer" as being from the 20th century. You removed this reference and on top of that you then requested that a reference be supplied. I would like to caution you that this may be seen as being disruptive. I trust we will communicate some more on the talk page so we can build a "proper" ]... hence avoiding edit conflicts as well as "comments" left within edit summaries and respecting Misplaced Pages's fundamental rules such as WP:V! Thank You --] (]) 00:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:(Other) encyclopedias should rarely be included as references. I suspect a scholarly fashion reference, or even a notable fashion (history) magazine, could source the information, if relevant. Dictionaries should almost never be included, although the etymology would be interesting if non-trivial. This etymology seems trivial. I'm trying to note that certain things you've included '''should not''' be there. &mdash; ] | ] 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

== This site seems not to be notable even within the "truth movement") ==

Please see Talk. Thank you. ] (]) 07:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

== You are a MAN ==

From a man that you will recognize...

This is the main difference between you and; the other, between En.WP and an other WP!! you may hope what do you want, but just behave honestly as you do ... I stand up in front of you, then I lean foreward, as a sign of respect, gratefulness and real admiration for your HUMAN dimension... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Barnstar ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Epic Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contribution to the year articles ] (]) 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
|}


== Minor edits ==

Hey there Arthur.


Would you please reivew ] and let me know where you believe this edit ] falls under that "guideline" (don't think it is technically a guideline? ] (]) 18:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think it's technically a guideline, either. I think your edit (IMHO) violated ], and the "guidelines" of ]. On controversial articles, I use the "minor" flag ''intentionally'' to indicate reversions of edits made against clear consensus, which don't qualify under 3RR. But I was just running on year patrol, and ''most'' of the random edits on future and present years are just wrong. Perhaps that one should stay, though. I won't revert if you reinsert it. &mdash; ] | ] 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

::It's nice to know where you were coming from.

::I have opened a dialogue on the talk page of 2012 to see what others think.

::You of course must and will use the minor tab as you see fit, though given the "guideline" :) I wouldn't feel good using it the way you describe. ] (]) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== Thank you for understanding ==

Dear friend: You made a change in Boubaker Polynomials page,
If you are an administrator; we respect your decision in respect to EN.WP without any discussion;
BUT : If you are a simple user, please express your objection in the discussion page, don't act as a part&Judge.
faitfully ] (]) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
...

:It's quite simple. Search results and self-published material is not allowed on article pages, although they can be discussed in order to find reliable sources. &mdash; ] | ] 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== attributing ==

Hello {{PAGENAME}},

I think we need to discuss the claim on the ], this is turning into edit warring, I'm afraid. &nbsp;&#151;&nbsp;<small>] ♫☺♥♪ ]</small> 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== survivor vs. victim ==

I'm conflicted about your insistence that "survivor" is POV with respect to the "child sexual abuse" article. I'm certain that I come from a biased point of view on this myself, and having worked with many survivors (in describing this in this note, I admit bias) of different forms of abuse I certainly am used to that language, which has those connotations.

And yet, I wonder if it is really so different than this?

"In collapsed buildings that did not catch fire, rescue teams searched the fallen buildings thoroughly, pulling out various survivors from underneath splintered wood and other debris.

(from the current edit of the article on the Loma Prieta earthquake.) Certainly "survivors" here expresses a point of view in addition to noting that it is talking about folks who remain alive after an event.)

Or this?

"Eliezer Wiesel on September 30, 1928) is a Hungarian-French-Jewish novelist, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor." (from Elie_Wiesel)

I don't believe either of those latter statements is particularly POV, I remain conflicted about the example in "Child Sexual Abuse" but actually don't have a fundamental argument why I'm conflicted about the first and clear on the second and third. It seems "victims who survived" would be a reasonable substitute in all three cases, and offer to *me* the same meaning that "survivor" does. Perhaps you could enlighten me in explaining (and I looked on the talk page, but didn't see your comment there), what your rationale is? --] (]) 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

:In the child abuse "field", "survivor" seems to be generally used as a buzz-word, leaving it ambiguous as to whether any abuse actually occured. "Victim" has no such confusion, but seems not to be generally accepted by social workers, as it presupposes the person is damaged beyond repair. Perhaps a neutral term can be found.... &mdash; ] | ] 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

What is WRONG?

y = x^x

inverse is:

x = y^y

y = x^(1/y)

y = x^(1/x^(1/y))

…

y = x^(1/x^(1/x^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^(1/x)^(…)

y = x^(1/x)^^∞

y = (1/(1/x)) ^ (1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^(1/x)^^∞)

y = 1/(1/x)^^(∞+1)

y = 1/(1/x)^^ ∞.

] (]) 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:It's not ''exact'' in '''any''' sense, but it does seem to be correct, combining the last equation of '''#Extension to infinite heights''' with the representation of ssrt here. The domains of definition may be different, though. I think it's non-trivial enough to need a reference. &mdash; ] | ] 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

== 3RR ==

3RR does not apply to vandalism, which to me would include the adding of a copyrighted image.--] (]) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, the adding a copyrighted image does not constitute vandalism, as a fair use claim was made by the uploader, and clarified by me. If '''you''' own the copyright of the image, you may request the ] remove it under the ]. Otherwise, only ] might make the image vandalism. &mdash; ] | ] 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
::I advise that both of you follow the ] page. Edit warring isn't going to solve this dispute, it'll only escalate it. —] (]) 04:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Block of L33t-Geek ==

You blocked {{user|L33t-Geek}} for abusing sockpuppet accounts. They are currently requesting an unblock. Since you did not say which account is the sock-master, it is hard to assess the evidence that this account is a sockpuppet of a blocked account. Could you provide evidence on that user's talk page or provide a link to the master account so that I may respond intelligently to his/her unblock request? Thanks! --].].] 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== Unblock ==

{{unblock reviewed|1=I realize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an unblock, but I was blocked, I believe, for edit warring on Kent Hovind, and the newly created account which was blocked for being created by a blocked IP (for edit warring there, an image, and a couple of user talk pages), was unblocked. I considered, and still consider, the edits to the image to be vandalism, and the removal of the image from the article to be minor vandalism, so it should not be subject to 3RR or other edit warring limitations, but should be reverted on sight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)|decline=The block appears to be based on you engaging in an edit war with an IP editor about whether an image should be included in an article.

Even though the IP appeared to be mistaken in labeling the image as copyvio - it is correctly tagged as fair use - this is, in substance, a content dispute, and not a matter of reverting vandalism. Per ], significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided. The charge that the image is in violation of copyright is unfounded, but it is not frivolous. The removal of the image, therefore, was not vandalism and your reversions were not exempt from the prohibition of edit warring.

In this situation, it would have been more appropriate to engage in ] instead of engaging in an edit war. While I would not have performed your block myself, it is not contrary to policy and I may not, therefore, unilaterally lift it. Please try to come to an understanding with the blocking admin via e-mail. — ] (]) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)}}

== Second amendment mediation ==

Just a heads up, a topic which you were involved in is undergoing mediation, ], you may want to participate, or add to your watch list, etc.. In any case, I value your opinion on this. ] (]) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

How can you use anti-christian websites as reliable sources for an article about a christian, thos tags belong.--] (]) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:Nonsense. They're reliable as to his views. The video, unless you claim it's a fake, would be reliable even if on a specifically anti-Hovind web site. &mdash; ] ] 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, please comment. Cheers! ] ] 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Louis Bleriot 100th 2009 ==

the Bleriot flight of July 25 1909 will be celebrated by most of Europe for it's 100th anniversay on July 25 2009. I dare say you are not privy to the history of Bleriot's crossing of the English Channel. If you would like some information on Bleriot's flight and it's ramification in the world let me know.
Thanks. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We need a a cite for '''present''' plans for the future celebration. I believe you, but Misplaced Pages doesn't run on belief, but on ]. For what it's worth, I've be removing the tricentennial celebrations in 2076 from ] as well, please don't think I'm US-centric, although I am in the US. &mdash; ] ] 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== re:] ==

:''WRONG. The material may have been posted by the copyright holder''
Your going to ''assume'' it is was may have been uploaded by him? It is long established that Google Videos illegally hosts copyrighted vidoes like YouTube, etc. From ]:
:''However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work''
You said it yourself, it may be this individual posting it himself, but do you have any kind of proof whatsoever that he even approved that video being there? Misplaced Pages has long considered it better to remove links to videos like this when in doubt, not to ignore it and hope that the copyright holder doesn't find out and complains. — ] 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:Do you have any <s>proof</s> ''evidence'' he ''didn't'' upload it himself. It's quite plausible that he would do so. &mdash; ] ] 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::You seem to be missing the point. You have to have evidence that it ''isn't'' a copyright violation, not evidence that it isn't. So do you? Links to copyrighted videos from YouTube and Google Videos are removed all the time if we have no evidence that the copyright holder granted permission to use it. Google Videos violates copyrights, and the only way to link to copyrighted videos from there is if permission was given from the copyright holder. Again, Misplaced Pages removes links when in doubt, and we don't keep it if we have no evidence to prove it wasn't. Even if it is possible that he did it, do you have anything to suggest he did? If not, I am removing it again. — ] 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Wrong. Misplaced Pages does '''NOT''' remove links when in doubt, and there's no reason to remove this link, except google video seems to have already removed it. &mdash; ] ] 18:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== dispute in psychohistory ==

Hi Arthur,

Although I have almost two years editing in WP I still have not used formally the dispute resolution process (I've only discussed a lot in talk pages though).

I've a question. I don't know how to deal with ] in ]. The last couple of days I've tried many times to engage him in talk page but he only reverts without good reason (in his last post he only says that my removals of his blatant pov about a living person were "vandalism").

To boot, because of misspelling, one of his footnotes (I believe it's #26) has corrupted the page and he continues to revert even after I called his attention twice to this problem (so the article looks corrupted below that footnote).

Besides discussing in psychohistory talk page, I 'd like to know which is the second step in the dispute resolution process: to ask a third-party opinion? I already tried to communicate with ] in his user talk page as well, to no avail.

I know you are very busy in WP but I'd appreciate at least some of your attention in that article.

—] 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:I patched the ref tag. As I'm going on a short Wikibreak this weekend (at least 10 am March 7 PST (UTC-8) through 5 pm March 10 PDT (UTC-7), with only occassional access, I can't really mediate at this time. If everything is as you say, an ''active'' editor will be needed. I'll look at it again when I get back. &mdash; ] ] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks! —] 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::If you are back tomorrow, please just take a look at ] and give me your advice here, if you don't have time to engage with that editor. —] 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

== Reply to message ==

It seems to be a bug in VP. I noticed someone else posted it on the bug tracker. Supposedly it's been fixed in 1.3.8. I haven't had a chance to try it yet. --] (]) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

== Decades ==

Hello! I see that you are a member of ]. How do you think, can ] (]) consist of ''nine'' years?! I suppose that it is ] and ]. If this was a convention, can you indicate the source of that idea? Thanks.--] (]) 10:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

== Time Times (]) ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Time/Time Times/Archive/2008-03}}

== Homeopathy ==

Hi you reverted me without discussion -see Homeopathy. Do you see it now?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507-- Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.270.107.246.88 (talk)

--] (]) 16:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, I see it. The paper has enough lies to consider the journal it appears in as non-reliable. Homeopathic "remedies" are '''not''' regulated as drugs in the US. They are even less regulated than dietary supplements. &mdash; ] ] 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::Now we must agree right?--] (]) 19:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I suppose we must agree that you're banned from the article. I don't see what else we agree on. &mdash; ] ] 19:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::::If you are honnest with yourself you might choose to see it.Best. --] (]) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

== Mihaela Mitrache article ==

Hi Arthur! This was my intention, to start translate the ro page. The Bucharest National Theatre is the most important Theatre in Romania, the best Romanian actors are playing on its stage; additionally, MM had roles in Romanian and co-production movies ("Milky - Way"), she also received nominations in some internaitonal movies. I hope that in a short while I will be able to fully translate the page, but as I am a new ocntributor to wikipedia, I might be somehow clumpsy in editing this article, so I would really appreciate any help. Thanx! (] (]) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

== Golden ratio ==

:I don't see the need for the project. But I'm not participating, so I could be wrong. &mdash; ] ] 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

::On what basis? <s>What's your relation with the topic?</s> Phidias, Leonardo da Vinci and Le Corbusier (to mention a few), men that are among the most pivotal designers in history, saw the need to use it at least in their most prominent work. I can't see how a project to tie all the articles dedicated to the object of their studies is not necesary. Also: the designers of the pyramid of giza, of stonehenge, of notre dame, venus the milo, etc.--] (]) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a mathematisian or something, so I already figured you relation. The relevance of the golden ratio from the Math porin of view migh not be bigger than the relevance of π, perhaps is more trascendental from the designing point of view.--] (]) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

== Arsenicum album ==

Hi there, Arthur. We may disagree on certain content, but I appreciator your rigor, and I appreciate fellow editors who are transparent. Cool. As for Arsenicum, my concern in one of my recent edits (that you UNDID) was that none of the references cited for the skepticism of homeopathy make reference to any of the research testing Arsenicum album. In other words, this article discusses several basic science and clinical trials that show positive effects from THIS homeopathic medicine, while the comment that you are seeking to protect is that overall skepticism for the broad field of homeopathy. How can we say this better than we do at present?

On a second subject, I noticed that you stated above that homeopathic medicines are not regulated as "drugs." Actually, this is not true. In the U.S., they are regulated as drugs, primarily as "over-the-counter drugs." And just so that you will know, American manufacturers of homeopathic medicines are regularly visited by representatives of the FDA (unannounced). As for labelling issues, no homeopathic medicine can be labeled for the treatment of any condition other than an "OTC ailment," that is, one that is self-limited, that doesn't require medical diagnosis, and that doesn't require medical monitoring. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:If you're referring to my latest reversion on AA, I think "homeopathy is not considered effective medicine" is more accurate than "... remains skeptical of homeopathic medicine", as well as more accurately reflecting the sources.
:On the second subject, I thought over-the-counter drugs required proof of safety (OK, I'll grant that), and evidence of effectiveness for ''some'' condition. If I'm wrong, I apologize. It should also be noted that, in a now-long-archived revision of one of the relevant talk pages, it was noted that one "manufacturer" of homeopathic medications was just shaking the diluent. No one noticed until they admitted it. Unfortunately, I don't remember the nationality of the manufacturer. If it was American, that suggests that FDA visits are not as frequent as required. But, I suppose, the same could be said for prescription medications.
:As a further aside, I have doubts that ] should be an over-the-counter drug, as the ratio between the recommended dose and the probably harmful dose is only a factor of 2, according to our article. (I thought it was 4. Learn something new every day.) &mdash; ] ] 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::Legally (in the U.S.), homeopathic medicines are primarily OTC drugs (there are, however, some homeopathic medicines, even in high potencies, to be Rx drugs because they are only used to treat people with serious and/or chronic illness, thereby having no indications for the treatment of self-limiting conditions). The ] of 1938 gave homeopathic medicines their legal recognition, and later (around 1968), they were deemed OTC drugs. The "Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US" is recognized by the FDA as an official compendium of drugs, and certain homeopathic texts (called "materia medica") are recognized by the FDA as having reliable information in them that allows drug manufacturers to market homeopathic ingredients for those OTC indications that these ingredients are known to cause. I have followed historical and present-day legal proceedings against homeopathic manufacturers, and I have never heard of the case you cite above, though, as always, I am open to be educated. If you ever find out details, I'd like to hear about it. I know one leading skeptic of homeopathy who likes to make reference to a homeopathic manufacturer who at least once was found to put conventional drugs in his homeopathic medicines, but he tends to forget mentioning that this single occurrence happened in Pakistan in the 1970s.

::As for Arsenicum album, my point is that the "scientific community" may be skeptical of homeopathy, but I do not know of specific skepticism of homeopathic Arsenicum album. Because this article shows that there are several animal and human trials published in reliable sources, we need to add something more to what is presently written. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


== Looking for your comments on the Bilingual Education page ==

There is a discussion on your two reverts of information at
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bilingual_education#Reversion_of_material_twice_on_page ] (]) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

== If you had read the talk page before reverting... ==

If you had read the talk page before reverting, you would have
figured out that we had reached consensus not to split that
infinitive. Would you self-revert, please?

== SRA ==

Hi Arthur,

Biao has just reverted again in ]. I will soon unwatch this article since I am pretty busy. Anyway, thanks for your work in that page.

] 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

== Accidental mistake in Homeopathic Arsenicum ==


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Arthur...slow down, you move too fast. I AGF, but please note you got confused between Linde's writings in 2005 about his meta-analysis about clinical research that was published in the Lancet in 1997. He did NOT write about the meta-analysis he and others did in 1994 on environmental toxicology. Heck, we all make mistakes. That said, you need to read (or re-read what Linde wrote in 2005 about his clinical meta-analysis because you and some other editors tend to either mis-quote it or not describe it accurately. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
== ] ==
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
I've responded to your revert ]. Cheers, ] (]) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
== March 2008 ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
* ]
:Vandalism of my talk page noted. &mdash; ] ] 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->

Latest revision as of 18:52, 3 December 2024

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
undated
2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Something

Hello there, dear sir. I would like to inform you that there is no need to have removed my edit to the year 1993. The edit that I made to this page is a relevant edit. If you were to have read the page, you would have known that the actress who I edited onto the page was born in 1993, so technically it is relevant information. If you see this, please take note. Thank you, The Editor.

P.S. My account is both more than 4 days old and I have made more than 10 edits, so there is no real need to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impishfont (talk • contribs) 23:11, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 65

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Misplaced Pages Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Category: