Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 11 December 2013 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

You make a difference

	Hello Arthur Rubin, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Misplaced Pages! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

Judaean vs Jewish

Judaean preserves more value of antiquity and is more contextually accurate Jewish is a modern ethnic why do you disagree with these valid facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

They are independent concepts. As far as I can tell, "Jewish" is what is supported by the sources. "Judaean" (probably misspelled) is not the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

they are not the same thing I have already gone over that the Romans called the land of Canaan as Judaea and called its inhabitants Judaeans and they later annexed Judaea Lebanon and Syria into one big province called Syria Palaestina where the name Palestine comes from please revert it back I will keep trying to revert it as it is more accurate Editguy111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See Ioudaios for context on this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 74 Runs may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {Rfd/core|[Sachin Tendulkar|month = November

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {Rfd/core|[Sachin Tendulkar|month = November

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Conrad (mathematician)

I am currently working on an article about the political cartoonist Paul Conrad. Whenever I work on a topic, I always check to make sure the subject is disambiguated. Today, I found that Paul Conrad (mathematician) is a possible article title. I have not heard of him, so I am not sure it is notable, but he is listed in the American Men & Women of Science. He lived from 1921-2006 and worked at the University of Kansas on ordered algebraic systems and group theory. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't recall the name, but I'll see if I can find something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: pp-semi

Your question doesn't say why I should do it. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reason to "rollback all" my edits related to it. There are several pages that still protected. I'm not a bot, I can make mistakes. If I added a tag to a non-protected page, it can be removed, but there's no real reason to do it if the pages still protected. Also, if my edits included "removal of vandalism" (if any), why it should be reverted? Tools are certainly not used for those purposes. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't know you found talkback's annoying; I assumed you were just removing them because you had seen them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Arthur, I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie is trying to delete large portions of the article. I have commented on the talk page and left warnings on their talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A newbie obviously created the original article in the first place. I am going to replace it - completely. The Plasma Cosmology page should be about Plasma Cosmology. The current article is little more than the culmination of topic hijacking. It reads more like an article about the triumph of the Big Bang Theory than an article about Plasma Cosmology. It will be replaced - period. I hope you will approve of my changes. I plan to remove every reference to other models and focus solely on Plasma Cosmology. If you have no interest in the topic, then keep your hands off. Critics are not authorities. Advocates are not authorities. I will present a neutral article that deals solely with Plasma Cosmology. Furthermore BullRangifer, your strong insult will not be tolerated. talk 21:43, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Coming from a newbie, that's pretty strong language which reveals a lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. I've been patient with you. I could have already had you blocked for edit warring. Your attitude is what we call "I didn't hear that," in other words you are not learning from much more experienced editors, even though they have left you warnings, advice, and links to more information. We don't completely rewrite articles here. You don't own the article. It belongs to all editors, and you should show some respect for those who have put time into its creation.

We do want article improvement, so small increments are good for a start, considering you're a newbie. Right now you seem to have no sense of the situation. To illustrate, it's like you're wading into someone else's living room and demanding that they operate their home according to the rules which you use at your home. You're demanding they throw out all their pictures and rearrange their furniture because you don't like it, but you don't know WHY they have arranged their home the way it is. Maybe there is a reason. After all, the rules for interior decorating in their home (Misplaced Pages) are FAR different from the rules in your home (your website or blog). The rules are totally different here, and if you don't learn them and listen to what we're telling you, you will end up getting blocked. It's that simple. We are very long suffering with newbies, but when they don't listen and learn, we simply get rid of them. Now show a bit of humility and start asking questions instead of making demands.

Let me introduce you to whom you're dealing with right now: Arthur a very distinguished mathematician in real life and is an administrator here (sysop, 89588 edits since: 2005-08-15). I am a Physical Therapist (with a Physician Assistant education besides that) and an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18). We are both experienced enough to help you, if you'll allow it. Since you will never be allowed to edit alone here, without other editors having a right to watch your every move, comment on your talk page (you do not own it), and revert your edits when there are ANY disagreements, you'd better get used to working with others. Communication and civility are valued here. That's how we work.

When in doubt, or if you meet any resistance, the proper reaction is to back off, ask questions on the talk page, discuss until a consensus is reached, etc.. Never attempt to force/push your POV into the article over the objections of other editors. The resulting article will likely never satisfy you, and that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. Other editors have a right to their input, and they will likely find reliable sources documenting POV with which you disagree, but NPOV requires the inclusion of opposing POV. If a subject is fringe, the article will document that fact and the mainstream POV will be dominant. We simply reflect what RS say.

You also need to remember to use edit summaries for every edit and comment, use the edit history to check for edit summaries before making edits, sign your edits properly (using four tildes (~~~~), etc.. I'm going to leave a welcome template at the top of your talk page. It has lots of good links to help you get up to speed. Read them very carefully before proceeding. I will also leave a modified copy of this message, just for the record. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dash grammar

At WT:MOS#Why "unspaced" em dashes?, could you elaborate on the “different grammatical meaning” that you think spaced en dashes have? No one there seems to be aware of it. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting edits

Hi, Arthur. I'm not sure what your intentions were with this request, but I want to make sure you know that asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. As far as I can tell, Arzel hasn't acted on this, and hopefully he won't. If he doesn't act and I don't see any more such requests from you, I will let the matter rest with this reminder. --RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably correct. However, the first point is just an error on the person's part. This relates to a clarification request I made which was ignored; if A really isn't related to the TPm, then the letter of my topic ban would allow me to remove the false statement that he is, but it would violate the spirit of my ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "spirit" of all topic bans is to encourage otherwise productive editors to stay away from topics where they get into unproductive disputes. There are literally millions of pages on Misplaced Pages that don't have any plausible association with the topic ban, so why do you need to be editing at Koch Industries or worrying about the naming and use of TPM categories? This is a good time to pursue an interest in articles about horticulture or basketball or model ships or 19th-century British theater or physics or whatever, so that no one can question that you are faithfully following the spirit. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Santilli

I wouldn't bet that the comments aren't serious.

I read his comments and his website, and I got A Modest Proposal-like vibe from them. Then again, I also got batshit crazy vibe as well. It's hard to say if he is doing this just to piss people off or if he really is insane. Might be both. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the nth degree

I just noted in my watchlist your apparently exhaustive efforts to reign in the IP sock factory. I am, quite simply, in utter awe, Arthur. I don't know much approbation you get from Wikipedians, but I can state unequivocally that it simply is nowhere near enough. Tracking a creep over two years would make me lose all my faith in humanity, and yet, you still appear to be generous, articulate and detail-oriented. Thank you ever so much for helping to make Misplaced Pages a place where I can edit with a minimum of interaction with sock-puppets. You are a mensch, sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RSN

As I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, I'll post a comment I nearly put there here.

"I would hope that proven errors should be relevant to whether a source is WP:RS."... well I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, but cf Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#.22Consortium_News.22_at_October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory, where a 1991 The New Republic article knowingly including a false claim on a key issue (per Craig Unger, who was there, and called it "the most dishonest thing in journalism" he'd ever seen, or words to that effect) continued to be merrily cited as a reliable source. In general, actual error (even deliberate error, on the rare occasion that is proven) seems irrelevant to "RSness", at least for things published by mainstream media organisations with editorial oversight. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom topic block on Tea Party movement

Arthur, I'm very much not trying to get you blocked; I'm warning you off so that you don't get blocked. But if you ignore the repeated warnings from myself, User:MrX, User:RL0919 and others, this isn't going to end well. MrX has already mentioned WP:AE, and to be fair, he's not wrong to do so.

Please work with us to prevent a completely avoidable block. You don't even have to acknowledge guilt. Just admit that your edits to Koch-related articles (especially Political activities of the Koch brothers) have been considered by some to be skirting the edge of your topic ban, so you're voluntarily avoiding those articles just to prevent the appearance of violation. This reasonable response will get all the pressure off you.

Will you do this? MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

You are the subject of an ARBCOM arbitration enforcement request here: WP:AE#Arthur Rubin. - MrX 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Astrodynamics and orbits

Hi, Arthur. I've noticed that you are a mathematician and aerospace engineer. Having these qualifications, I thought you could clarify some aspects concerning spiral trajectories of orbital bodies like satelites and the requested force laws that could allow spiral trajectories, aspects which are missing from articles like Cotes spirals which says these spirals are trajectories for moving in a inverse-cube central force. That article has some steps missing in the demonstration that could be clarified. Thanks for your answer--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)