Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:05, 9 December 2006

Archives

/Archive 2005 /Archive 2006

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post.

Probability-based strategy AfD

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Dallas

Hello! Your discussion, as it dealt with a proposal for work across the project and not the specific project page, was moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dallas/General (Our general discussion forum). My reply is there. Happy editing! drumguy8800 C T 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Global city

Hi Arthur,

Major cities are not my topic I am the physiscal chemist, but I do care about science. I do not think that the Loughborough view of the world is so scientific and should be presented as such in wikipedia. I tried to politely point out a major and significant shortcoming in their approach: cities that grew from multiple centers like the Triangle -my current abode-, the Colorado Front range and -dare I say my hometown- the Netherlands Randstad are simply not treated fairly. The article should at least be honest about the fact that other approaches are quite possible but all that gets censored away. Can we ask for arbitration or so. I am usually at nl: not here (I dont like it here because I always run into this kind of bias)

Jcwf 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We can try for arbitration; IMHO, it's generally slow enough that you could check in daily and not lose too much. However, your "multiple center" (or centre) argument wasn't taken from a reference (as far as I know), so cannot be placed in the article. It can, however, be placed in the talk page for discussion, which I did, even though User:Elk Salmon seems to think that GaWC is the only published analysis. If he's correct, then the article possibly should reflect their city lists.

The next stage, as I understand article dispute processes, would be an article WP:RfC. "Talking" with Elk Salmon seems unlikely to be productive, although I suppose it could be tried. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you Arthur, although I am somewhat dismayed at your interpretation of 'taken from reference'. This way the most patent nonsense can be protected from any critique. This makes wikipedia decidely anti-scientific. In science any logical argument is allowed. Besides: I have nothing against putting the GaWC list in the article, but it at least deserves a remark about the procedure followed in it. I quote the list itself as proof: it treats Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague as separate entities. The 7 million people who live there all know that they live in a thing called Randstad. Even the anglophone world has some name recognition on that point, at least here in the US (thanks to a certain employment agency). Jcwf 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is difficult to maintain — that's one of the reasons I nominated it for deletion and for a move to GaWC. But, to avoid people adding their own lists, we must require that any list be properly sourced. In general, WP:OR requires that any (arguable — and User:Elk Salmon will argue it) synthesis requires a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Number Gossip

Sorry if I misunderstood guidelines.

I feel that my number gossip page ( http://www.numbergossip.com ) is a good resource about numbers and sequences. It would make sense for me to have a link to number gossip page from every sequence article in Misplaced Pages about sequence that number gossip searches for and for every number article that have unique properties in number gossip search. What should I do?

Another question. I constantly update number gossip page with new unique properties for numbers. Is there a way to automatically feed the properties that are not present in wiki to wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanyakh (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about the delay. Unless you claim your website has the stature of the OEIS, it shouldn't be listed in all number sequence or property articles. It might be listable in one or two articles, perhaps Integer, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not automatically; we've rejected some properties as "uninteresting" in the past. You could create a script for your user page to create the articles, but I would advise against doing it "automatically" — if, for no other reason, to ensure that we don't have the article under a different name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OIES has been around for 40 years, my number gossip is only 7 years of work, (and I am working full-time with something else and I am a single mother). So, it is a long way ahead for me to create an On-line Encyclopedia of Integers matching in stature the OEIS. But this is what I am doing. OIES is a great website and I use it a lot, but it is not targeted to provide information about specific integers, and my website does. As by the guidelines, I can't put the link to my website in wiki. Thus, I am asking you to add the link where you think it is appropriate. I trust your judgement. You can find my resume on my personal website: http://www.tanyakhovanova.com . Sorry, I have not yet figured out how wiki talk works; I hope this time I at least signed it correctly. Tanyakh 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing her pointers into clickable ones. JRSpriggs 09:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request

Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is Wiktionary:anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you famous?

What have you done? What makes you different? Do you think that you are better than others? If so, can you provide a reasonable justification in respect thereof?

Misplaced Pages, whatever else can be said of it, is, well, very public. This message, for example, is not just between you and me. Anyone in the world, at any date, or any time, can read it. Will this influence the content of your response (assuming that you feel I am worthy of a response)?

--Lance 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the context of this message is, but, and my immediate reply would be "why are you asking"?

For what it's worth, my IQ was rated (as a child) at 163 on a test which isn't reliable much above 155, so, for all I know, I might be the smartest person in the world, rather than Marilyn vos Savant. I don't think so, but I never had much interest in taking more advanced IQ tests.

I received my Ph.D. in Mathematics from CalTech at the age of 22 in 1978.

I have a number of awards from high school math contests, and am a 4-time Putnam fellow. (See Arthur Rubin for some other details.)

And I do have a (joint) patent to my name.

But I think I'm better than others because I'm usually right when there's a dispute about facts. Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines/essays/whatever are another matter, being more of a weighted popularity contest than a factual argument....

And I don't think I'd say anything differenet if it weren't public, except that I might put more emphasis on "Who are you to ask?", and I certainly wouldn't Wikilink my comments except on a Wiki. Also, I might copyedit here more than I would unless asking for something.

As for Misplaced Pages policy, it's considered antisocial to redirect your user page unless you intend to apply for a user name change, as it breaks the User Contributions link in the navigation toolbox on the left (in the standard configuration). Would you please move it back where it belongs?

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Beauvoir

I can understand not wanting to decide content disputes (even very minor ones) in the RfD process, but now that it's closed, do you have any real objection to my proposed retargeting? I don't think that Beauvoir (disambiguation) is a bad target, per se, but only that my proposed target is better. On the other hand, I don't think it's worth disputing the current target if there's a difference of opinion; hence, I'd like to hear yours. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and retarget. I just think that the initial target (at the time of the RfD) was clearly wrong, and that no one actually wanted to delete the redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite understood. Thanks for the prompt and courteous reply. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Lance

Dear Mr. Rubin,

Perhaps my inquiry in respect of your identity was misconstrued. What I find most compelling about this forum is its anonymity. In such circumstances, I am free to speak my mind unconstrained by ordinary social constraints; a privilege that I freely exercise.

You appeared to be offended by my inquiry; if so, I regret the offence; and please accept my apology, if such sentiments are appropriate in the circumstances.

Please note that I had administrator approval for my multiple accounts as set out hereafter:

Multiple accounts

Hi Lance, I was asked to comment re: your multiple accounts, Lance (talk · contribs) and Lance6968 (talk · contribs). I don't see a problem as long as you are aware and comply with WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had an editing dispute with User:Jayjg over the content of the article "Kosher tax," that I had substantially re-written. User:Jayjg's actions—subsequent to User talk:Humus sapiens' approval—has to be understood in this context; and can thus fairly be described as vandalism.

For the foregoing reasons, please restore my user page to my last edit.

Regards,

--Lance 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any user page redirecting to any other user page as complying with WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. The idea of allowing multiple accounts to is keep your edits separate, while, here, you seem to be trying to conflate the two users. The move block stands, although you may appeal to User:Humus sapiens, and I'll probably abide by his decision. You may change "Lance6968" to "Lance" on the USER page, but it would be vandalism on the talk page, as it edits a statement over a signature. (And, as I noted on your talk page, your signing someone else's name to something he didn't say is blatent vandalism.) I can't verify that you placed it back in the same context, or who deleted it, so it's still not obvious that it isn't vandalism, but I must assume good faith. Please point to diffs (see below for an example). I also can't readily find evidence that the two users are the same.

(It would have been preferable if you had pointed to a diff where Mr. sapiens said that, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ALance6968&diff=81753658&oldid=81563337) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

General intelligent design

Hey, I saw you tagged the article for deletion, and I just wanted to know more about your reasons for deletion. Is it a hoax or something? Or is it a legit article that can be rewritten by erm...a mathematician like yourself? Nishkid64 23:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that it's a hoax — but that wouldn't be grounds for a speedy deletion. I just can't figure out what it's saying at all; just look at my edit summary:

It has words, and the words are formed into sentences, and the sentences make no sense.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it was still looks like something that should be written about judging from "What links here". Nishkid64 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. They were all redirects and TLA disambiguations created by the same person. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Global city

Please sort out the content dispute you're having on Global city on the talk page of the article instead of taking part in further revert warring. Thank you. Cowman109 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic-systems

Sorry, but a Logic-system is from logic. Indeed, it is from the area now called universal logic. It is a generalization of a Formal Theory as you might read the definition in Mendelson's book. Published results appear in the 2001 paper in the references. Another paper using logic-systems will appear in a few days in the journal Logica Universalis. More are in the works. It is shown there that a general logic-systems is equivalent to a consequence operator. Depending upon usage one can now use a general logic-system or a finite conseqeunce operator as representing a universal logic. Indeed, the lattice theoretic properties of the set of all finite consequence operators defined on a language have interesting set-theoretic logic-system properties. The language L is not considered as a formal language. Now, it was Tarski in 1931 who introduced the notion of universal logic via consequence operators when he defined the consequence operator. As to General Intelligent Design, I'll wait until there are at least 10 publications that use the material or reference it. At the moment, there are only four. I guess that this note will be time and dated stamped automatically. (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raherrmann (talk • contribs)

To properly sign your messages, please use "~~~~" (four tildas) as I do at the end of this message. The wiki software will automatically convert it to your identifier and a time stamp. JRSpriggs 07:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nov 13 RFD Closings

I just closed the remaining Nov 13 RFD nominations. In doing so, I noticed your closures of Beauvoir & Clyde Frog. It's minor, but there were a couple of things that struck me:

On Beauvoir, you stated "The exact target is a content dispute, which shouldn't be discussed here." However, when RFD was renamed "Redirects for discussion", one of the reasons given was that it should be a place people could take redirects they weren't sure what should be done with. It wasn't meant to be a dispute resolution mechanism, but support cases like this one (someone who wasn't sure what should be done). Typically, we close those as "re-targeted".

On Clyde Frog, you stated "moot, being created as an article". However, Clyde Frog wasn't actually the nominated redirect. Clyde frog was as I stated in my comment. The nominator mislabeled the heading. When you closed the discussion, you left the RFD tag on the redirect. Somebody did remove it the day after you closed it.

Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I hope I didn't confuse too many people. (I think Beauvoir has been further retargeted after closure, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not a problem. It was minor as I said. -- JLaTondre 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sir

Your deletion comments are very good. When most of the Jews are voting for keeping the article and you are the first Jew brother I found who had voted for deletion. I appreciate it. . --- ALM 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I try to keep my POV out of my "recommendations" (!votes) for Misplaced Pages. I'm happy to see that my attempts are appreciated. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

re 65.164.168.38

Hi Arthur. I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my change? The Crying Orc 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see what your masterful scheme is. ;-) The Crying Orc 17:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer your first question, there's no evidence it's his current occupation. Although I don't really think he or the book is notable, under WP:LIVING, we really can't say something like that unless it's verified. So, although I think the article is better with it there, we can't have it without a cite. Sorry. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I just like symmetry, that's all. And I thought that he needed some 'job description' since all the others had one, so I tried to put one there. I sourced it from the Misplaced Pages article! The Crying Orc 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pat Price

Is this bogus CIA report the source of some of the cruft in Project Stargate? Guy (Help!) 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Unfortunately, there was a real "black" CIA project, which found (in declassified published reports) found no successes, and was enventually cancelled, as was reported. I'm not sure where the rest of Project Stargate came from; either from phony CIA documents, or from scripts of Stargate.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Langan Article

It's heartening to learn that you have a high IQ (although I would expect such given your degree and accomplishments). Perhaps you can examine one section of the Langan article and give me your considered opinion.

The opening sentence describes Langan as an "intelligent design advocate" and uses this quote as a reference for support. I think the quote is actually good, but does not support the statement that Langan is an ID advocate. It is more of an indicator of Langan's balanced position on the topic of ID - evolution. As such, I think it is good in the article but the designation "intelligent design advocate" ought to be removed or changed to better reflect Langan's position. What do you think? --DrL 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Isn't that asking me to make an original synthesis of information? No?

Well, that quote alone, without further interpretation through CTMU or other philosphical constructs, is consistent either any of the following interpretations:

1. A modified anthropic principle (if there weren't intelligent life in the this universe, we wouldn't be here to discuss it) and that the universe must contain "intelligence" in order to produce intelligent life, or
2. A redefinition of the term "intelligence" to state that a universe which "solves problems" must be "intelligent",
3. with his being an intelligent design advocate.

I just can't tell. From what I remember from reading the CTMU paper, I lean toward #3 with a hint of #2, but I could easily be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My take on reading Langan is that his position is largely 1 & 2. It's POV to depict him in a particular way that is not consistent with the position he takes in his writings. That's what's being done in his bio. This is especially true in light of the fact that the ID buzzwords have been conflated with creationism and used to paint people as creationists, or evolution-deniers, and dismiss their ideas. Langan makes very clear in his writing that he supports the concept of evolution (although it is not in itself explanatory in the complete sense). I hope you can step back and evaluate the changes that I suggest in the future in an open manner (maybe even make some of your own) in an effort to maintain NPOV in that article. --DrL 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong in part. The mathematics of ID makes no sense, so it would be MHO (and the stated opinions of some WP:RS) that ID is a cover for creationism. I'm not absolutely sure if CTMU is a cover for ID or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not ID is a cover for creationism or the mathematics of ID makes sense to you or anyone else really has nothing to do with Langan and the CTMU. The CTMU as a "cover" for ID is nonsense! I have read all of Langan's published writings at length and he is very cautious regarding ID. He has never endorsed it and totally avoids the politics. He took advantage of ISCID's open-minded offer of publishing his work and I believe that is the extent of their relationship. Please bear that in mind. --DrL 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing of pi page

Please allow me to add the comment as the result is very intriging to mathematicians as root pi - root 3 is extremely close to a rational number as the first few decimals repeat. Also the result has an error of 1 X 10^-8 which is a very very very small number!

If the problem is that I have put my name next to it I do not mind if that is removed (that is understandable) but I feel the mathematics should be included on this page.

Thank you,

James.

I don't find it interesting, as the expression to 9 decimal places is "simpler" than your expression to 7 decimal places. I don't find it interesting, so unless you can find a source which states it as an interesting fact, it can't be here in Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Arthur Rubin.jpeg

1. is it realy you?
2. If yes,under what liscence do you whant it?

File:Arthur Rubin.jpeg

• --Pixel ;-) 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, it's me.
2. I'm not sure the correct license. It was taken at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, and we paid for the picture on CD, but I'm afraid it may be non-commercial use only. I'd need to research that further. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Arthur, please review my recent edits to the Langan bio and let me know if you think I have done anything to violate NPOV. I removed the unsourced assertion that Langan is an ID advocate and rearranged the paragraphs and put back a brief description of the CTMU paper. --DrL 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The rearrangement is just wrong. That he's a fellow of ISCID must precede the reference to the paper published by ISCID, or the fact that ISCID is an ID front (I mean, was created by ID advocates :) ) would be given undue weight. Some statement that ISCID is associated with ID is required in this article.

The revision I reverted to is pretty bad, stylistically, but I didn't want to revert back a week. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance, Arthur. Please look at it later this morning as I will try to improve it with your requirements in mind. --DrL 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Please review the recent rv by FM to the Langan article. There is nothing wrong with the edits I made this morning and work I've done to improve the article. TIA. --DrL 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted FM's global revert and I would please ask you to review the situation and encourage editor collaboration and discussion. I am perfectly willing to work with the other editors and would suggest that changes that are too POV one way or the other, positive or negative, be discussed by interested editors. --DrL 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

A word to the wise: a lot of people don't agree with the use of rollback on non-vandalism edits and get upset over things like this. While I don't feel strongly one way or the other, some people consider it an abuse of admin privileges. Guettarda 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. But that particular edit falls under (the current interpretation) of WP:BLP (as applying to active organizations), and should be speedily removed, and I had removed that edit before, giving a reason. I don't know if adding text in violation of policy when a reason had previously been given for its removal is technically "vandalism", but it seems close. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing talk page warnings

Hi, Arthur - I am looking for your advice here. I warned kenosis for violating WP and he has removed my warning twice with misleading comments. As I understand it, warnings should not be removed from talk pages. Before I go back and put in a stronger warning, I thought you could let him know that his edit was in violation and that he should leave the warning on his page. I'd prefer to leave it at that than escalate. --DrL 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been established that removing talk page warnings is not necessarily in violation of WP policy, I'm afraid. (See the discussion on the deletion of the warning template about removing warnings.) I wouldn't do it, myself, without consensus that the warning was unfounded (which I once obtained at WP:AN/I), and perhaps it should be in violation of WP policy.

However, as his comment on removal is also in violation, I've reinstated and amplified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Arthur. I would appreciate it if the edit summary could be redacted. Do you know who I can ask about this? --DrL 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur - if you're going to lecture people about failing to assume good faith, you should really refrain from edit summaries like this one. You also ignored my comment about assuming good faith at Talk:Christopher_Michael_Langan. Either DrL is Langan's wife, and thus she has a valid opinion (which should be restricted to the talk page) or she isn't, in which case she is just a pov-pushing edit warrior, who is editing against consensus. You seem to be assuming the former, which means that you are just as guilty of failing to AGF as is Kenosis. Guettarda 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin: Sorry to see you get caught in the middle of the lobbying efforts by the protagonist(s) of the article on Mr. Langan. However, violations of WP:Autobiography, by an apparent husband-and-wife team engaged in attempting to control the content of the husband's WP article, require mention of who the participating parties are in order to identify what the relevant issue is. These WP users appear to have a conflict of interest, and a "warning" by either of those parties for me to desist from mentioning either of them is not, in my judgment, a genuine warning based on any actual violation of WP policy. It is instead simply a lobbying attempt by one of the involved users. That is why I removed it from my talk page. Take care. ... Kenosis 18:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, word of advice: make sure you know what you're on about before making a statement like the one you made on Kenosis' page. •Jim62sch• 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think the initial edit summary was inappropriate, although provoked. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Billion-edit pool

Hello ! You missed Misplaced Pages:Billion-edit pool. Pity. Someone has opened a request at WP:DRV on the others: "deleted out of process and should be restored". Hmm. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After careful study, I decided that the billion-edit pool is different, so I put it back. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tango TV

See Talk:Tango TV for my suggestion as to how to proceed, and let me know how I can help. Andrewa 15:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and take over, if you want to. That looks like a good place for the discussion, even if it is presently a redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Open Directory Project and AboutUs.org

Not a spin off-- Ok - Please check re-wording. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiPersonality (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 2, 2006 (UTC)

It would be marginally acceptable, although a violation of WP:NPOV, as long as the article is present, except for the possiblility that the site is yours, which would make your addition spam. However, when the article goes, the comment in Open Directory Project should go as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note of thanks

Just to thank you for having signed all my edits in Talk:Global city. I'm sorry, i just always forget. I'll try to remember now. Oh yes, and you're probably right about Manila being more important than Barcelona. My mistake! Daniel Montin 12:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing what Jcwf said earlier about Global city, I too take advantage to complain about that article. it's a scandal that such an outdated and controversial item should be published on Misplaced Pages. The very fact that it attracts so much discussion is a bad sign. Daniel Montin 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Illena ban from pages?

Where is this ban documented?

Ilena complained to the unblock-en-l mailing list about the block; I have replied already, but was curious if the ban you referred to in the talk pages was real/documented or not... There's nothing on her talk page, etc, with a reference for it.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot confirm the ban. I recall someone banned from Stephen Barrett, who seemed to be Ilena, but I can't even find a reference to that. (I didn't act because the ban, only the 3RR (actually around 7, if you count the anons making the same edits.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, there was no real question about the 3+RR issue, I just wanted to be able to bring all the right info to the table if there was more pushback. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your rv

To me this is an obvious violation of WP:LIVING, but I'd already asked for Xoloz's advice and intervention so why don't you just let it sit. --DrL 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING

As a reminder, WP:LIVING states that "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages." --DrL 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the assertion that he's a crank could be taken as anything but opinion, but it could be a violation of WP:LIVING. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject:LEAD

I have proposed a very bold wikiproject to have article's lead paragraphs conform to WP:LEAD, it could potentialy be an issue of debate as presently thousands of articles do not conform and would be tagged. I would very much appreciate your advice on the WP:LEAD talk page. Thanks FrummerThanThou 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD . -- Fyslee 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)