User talk:Arthur Rubin

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 2008 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008

I'm within a mile of the fire evacuation zone for the Brea fire. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Division algebra reversion

Hi Arthur,

You just reverted an edit I did to improve the style and the content of the page cited in the headline. The linguistic style of the original was truly terrible, so those changes should not be an issue.

I realized I made a mistake of content of my own in my error correction, and was in the process of correcting it when I encountered an edit conflict with your reversion. I have now effectively reverted your reversion and corrected the mistake I made, as well as included a reference citing Wolfram's math world definition of a division algebra.

I once knew, long ago, an Arthur Rubin with exceptional math abilities. I see from your talk page you are probably not the same man. The Arthur I knew would see in a flash both the original page I edited was incorrect, as well as the incorrect aspect of my initial correction, but I see no evidence of extraordinary mathematical aptitude in your talk page.

It is my belief the introduction is now correct, although the remainder of the page is in dire need of style improvements. It is my hope you will leave the improvement, for that is the intent of the wikipedia, isn't it? i.e. gradual improvement through collective consensus.

In matters of math, there is such a thing as unambiguous right and wrong. Many of the wikipedia math articles are in great need of improvement. I never trust them when I need to learn something I don't know because so many of the ones I do know are confusing or wrong. When I do see something I know is wrong, I correct it, in the hope that eventually, all wikipedia math articles may be trusted.

Best regards, always and forever, I will remain anonymous [the url is public] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.153.115 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I could see that your "correction" had several errors in it. It's possible you fixed them, but I'll revert it again if it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Change weasel to weasel-inline

Thanks--I couldn't find that in WP:weasel, and I knew a function like that existed. I appreciate your sharp eye. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi, Thanks for your comment at limit of a function. You may recall that the page (ε, δ)-definition of limit contains a blunt statement of the epsilon-delta definition in all its naked beauty so that those who with to compare it with the non-standard definition can easily do so. The page (ε, δ)-definition of limit is actually well-visited. There were close to 100 hits yesterday and comparable though lower numbers for the past month or so. The discussion at the talk page of limit of a function seems to converge to a merge, which I think would amount to a bit of an obfuscation. The page limit of a function starts with a lengthy discussion of approximation theory which is the traditional way of buffering the intrinsic and irreducible difficulty of the Weierstrass approach. Moreover, limit of a function tends to present the standard approach as the only possible one. Now certainly a majority of practicing mathematicians today to adopt this view. However, a significant minority do not. I think wiki guidelines are consistent with presenting a view of a significant minority, which are above POV pushing. Your input at the talk page of limit of a function would be appreciated. Katzmik (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house Inclusionist (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undo

Why did you undo my edit to Training (meteorology)? -- IRP ☎ 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say: "If it's uncommon, it shouldn't be placed that prominently", but I clicked an arrow which submitted the change, for some reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned that people will be wondering what happened. I checked the article page view statistics, and "Storm train" still has more page visits than "Training (Meteorology)". So that means that most users are still looking it up as "Storm train", probably because it is less to type than "Training (meteorology)" or "Thunderstorm training". So for the people who may think that they cannot find what they are looking for, and why it is no longer called "storm train", by adding that sentence, it will inform people that it is uncommon, but sometimes referred to by that name. -- IRP ☎ 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC), modified 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you reply? Should I place the sentence somewhere else? It is a fact. -- IRP ☎ 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC), minor modification: 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Storm train" may have more visits because it sounds interesting, not because people are looking for the term. And that is not a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for all of the edit conflicts

Eventually technology will make edit conflicts an annoyance of the past. Sorry about that. Inclusionist (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader Edit

Is there a reason you reverted the edits to the Ralph Nader page? The three sentences were relevant to his 2008 campaign for President and cited reliable references. The focus of his campaign and the fact that he has potentially broken a Guiness World record for campaigning in the process are two noteworthy pieces of information for a third party presidential candidate. Just wondering. Sigmundane (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the alleged "Guiness World" record for campaigning as notable. The focus of his campaign (if he, in reality, has one) probably is. He certainly has the US record for campaigning for a Presidential candidate who does not have a mathematical chance of winning, not being on enough ballots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the info that you deleted previously (as you requested on the talk page) yet you still reverted it. Without this information it appears that Nader did not even announce his candidacy. Copana2002 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't summarized; you included all of a previous version, including the unsourced "focused". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not make an effort to summarize the info yourself, since in its current form it appears that Nader is not even running for president? I'm not trying to start a fight here, it just seems a little excessive to delete a whole section because the last sentence is improperly sourced. Copana2002 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to summarize it, I would have left one sentence, instead of the 4 paragraphs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemanshu

Centralizing the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hemanshu. MBisanz ^talk 12:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem

Dear Arthur,

It looks like you are not an expert in Electron structure of the Atoms. You are deleting the links that have been viewed by thousands of people, including experts since last spring and early summer.

The web site in question was viewed and approved by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann. What is your problem?

All information presented there is correct and works. If you do not understand it I can explain, but stop removing the links, please. Drova (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Dr. Hoffmann had designed the web site, and it said that on the site, that would take it out of WP:ELNO#11. Otherwise, you (the web site content author) would need to be a recognized expert in the field. I don't see that as accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you want to "throw the book" at this issue. However, you failed to pinpoint exactly what is incorrect about it. Can you intelligently explain what exactly is incorrect in the content of that link?Drova (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said. Why does it not violate WP:ELNO#11, as it's your site, and you are not an expert in the field (the guideline goes on to suggest that only experts with their own Wikipedia article should be considered.) I think it's bogus, but, even if it were correct, it shouldn't be used as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi ArthurRubin - I just wanted to stick my head in and see what was going on here. Can I be of service? Non Curat Lex (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question, and a few IP addresses which are undoubtably him, have been adding references to the website perfectperiodictable . com (spaced so that the link doesn't appear here), as if it were a usable web site describing a scientific theory. It's clearly a personal web site, which should be sufficient for removal. I first saw it at Close-packing of spheres, which I found during the naming dispute on that article. It seemed clearly inappropriate there, and considering how inappropriate it seemed, I thought I'd see where else it was added.

1. Quantum number; if the site were acceptable, and were slightly rewritten, it might justify an alternate set of quantum numbers for the electron configuration, of n+l (increasing), l (decreasing), and m (neutral) (in terms of the energy of the orbital.)
2. Aufbau principle; clearly wouldn't fit, even if rewritten.
3. Electron configuration; if the site were acceptable, a possible link, as the analogy to the tetrahedral configuration (not "close-packing") could be a useful mnenomic device for the electron orbitals.

But the site is clearly not acceptable under WP:ELNO#11, and it has some pseudoscientific baggage.

It appears he's the only one who thinks it belongs. I had to be careful to avoid 3RR, so I had to use the {{dubious}} tag on the last round. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2070s

Hi! It was not an automated patch, I fixed it by manually running the corresponding command. Unfortunatelly, I don't know any way to automatically fix it. TXiKi (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Error on Cook Levin theorem page

Dear Arthur, please join the discussion under CNF on the discussion page of Cook-Levin theorem. Vegasprof (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with the William Rodriguez Page

Mr. Rubin, I want you to check the page again. User Contrivance, like always has continued his non supported editing , NPOV, WikiNOCrystalBALL, etc. He complained to admin Charles Matthews and I received a warning. Not fair, I believe that it should have been all the way around, but then again, Mr.Mathews may not have all the time to go trough all the edits made by this user. After constant pointing by others, including you on his use of non wiki, npov, speculation and dubious websites, he has taken the complaint as the only form to hit back since he is constantly proved to be wrong. PLease do check again and if you can, communicate with Mr. Matthews about this whole issue. Fairness is what I am asking for, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks in advance.Celeronel (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Rubin, Celeronel's ideas of fairness are very peculiar, and include the privileges of 1) charging that any criticism of incompetent research or reasoning or grammar is racist, 2) posting from personal knowledge, 3) exemption from probable sockpuppetry and WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues, 4) failing to respond to questions about the rationale for peculiar and often ungrammatical edits, 5) mind-reading of the subject, unjustified inferences, advertising and, finally, 6) attempts of long standing at intimidation through attempted outing and threats to slander associates of the real life person he wishes Contrivance were. Celeronel claims he's asking for fairness. What he practices is thuggery. Ask Jazz2006. Contrivance (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 1#Template:2008 Boston Tea Party presidential candidate

Would you mind withdrawing this nomination so that all of these templates can be nominated? The Republicans, Democrats, and (I believe) each party listed on the Third party page have a similar - and similarly pointless - template that should be discussed/deleted all at once, imho. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I may withdraw it, as there are two other delete votes. I see your point, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll put together a nomination for the other templates at User:Philosopher/Sandbox and put them up. I think I'll wait until the current TfD is done, though - one of my pet peeves is overlapping noms taking place at the same time ("Let's rely on that precedent...wait, it hasn't been decided yet!"). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On years articles

Hi Arthur, I have been wondering if awards should be unlinked or not. While Nobel prize has more links to sub prizes, the other prizes don't. Such as the Templeton Prize on the article 2000. So what should be used? (On WP policies, links are allowed in subtitles if the whole title is a link.) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a prize which typically only has one recipient per year should be a subheading; perhaps a Wikitable or an html dd list might be a more appropriate format, if we add more than one "minor" prize. But it probably should be a link. Rembmer, though, I was in favor of linking the dates of birth and death in biographical articles, so I may be more supportive of links than most. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best way would be to add all the awards to a single section called Awards. Should I go with section Awards? — Orion11M87 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SRA

'Cos you and PS were editing the section - what do you think of this wording? Emphasis is on the explanation, not the authors. Suggestions welcome, it's getting harder to write the page as all the crap I've read is starting to slosh together. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

30th Century

Why did you revert my edits to the 30th century article? Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be an extension of the previous item, which already has too much detail. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bit too detailed in the first place. I have re-introduced my information while paring down the original material. Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nao Kudo

In the AFD for this entry you specifically ask for cleanup/creation. That's not really what AFD is for. I suggest you search the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for help or some Category:Japanese Wikipedians instead. If you withdraw the nomination, I'll drop a copy of the article on your talk page after deletion -- if you think it's useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if she's notable, meaning AfD is appropriate. All I'm saying is that the article really doesn't say she's notable, and I haven't found a strong indication that she's notable in English-language materials. The only thing in it's (the article's) favor is that there's an apparently stable article on ja.wikipedia, although I wouldn't swear it's about her, and, even assuming good faith, there's no reason to assume that ja. and en. have the same notability standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A volunteer request

Dear Arthur. I am submitting (an) RfA and if you could write an Op-Ed (Co-nom) on my contributions and understanding of Wikipedia, it would be very helpful. I have also asked Gwen Gale. Your time is really appreciated. I have learned a lot from you and I thank you for that. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would help, considering the number of times that I've been blocked, but I'll certainly give it consideration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. On blocks, I don't think it's a problem at all, considering few blocks, I believe were not fully justified and were 3rr. But considering you are a very good person is what matters. Mostly if not all, you understand the world in true meaning, you know the great damage done by mythologies and pseudoscience, and you are a skeptic. Oh, and have a PhD from Caltech, very nice. When I come to California in 2009, I will meet you. I am a String Theorist, and building the world's largest university (currently in planning and design stage, I will keep you informed via email). Sincerely, Orion11M87 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

better place?

We're off topic there; perhaps you could point or create a new place where we can exchange few ideas about the subjecst we've just touched. Universalsuffrage (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Please move the title 2009 in video gaming to WP:YRS standard title 2009 in games, also the new title is required for the Template:C21YearInTopic. Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A problem is that the template at the bottom of the article points to dozens of "year in video gaming" articles. This needs further investigation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

september 11

there is no more proof that september 11 was an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda than there is that it was organised by the American government. it is a pity that someone of your power cannot see the fault in only being able to prove somethings truth by providing links to other media's opinions. you guys do an amazing job but one should always remember that with the role of 'speakinng the truth' comes a huge responsibility.

is it not obvious that there is a fault in trusting mainstream media to be the ones deciding what is the truth?

warren lewis south africa

--Worldwarwon (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree — meaning (1) the Wikipedia consensus, including myself, vs. (2) you and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Please take it to the appropriate article talk page, if you want to deal with the matter further. I will not respond further here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Irrational Number Generator

I don't understand the article and don't really care if it stays or goes, but every time I turn around you've heaped another template upon it. Isn't nominating it for deletion enough? It may be difficult for the primary editor to assume your good faith since you have not offered any explanation on the talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added and deleted templated tags, although I see I need to add one more, POV#Title, or whatever it's called. I didn't check who added "too-technical", but it's not. I now see that the statement is trivially equivalent to Fermat's Last Theorem, but the name is not used anywhere in the real world, and the author has not provided any evidence that the statement appears anywhere in the real world. I provided most of what you might think is needed on the talk page in my {{prod}} reasons, which the author responded to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any justification for the factual accuracy being disputed. Yes, you backed off it being totally disputed, but isn't it polite to justify your reasons for disputing the facts? I don't expect to understand those reasons but I imagine the other editor might. I'm still not seeing a big assumption of good faith on your part here - although I'm aware that this is far from my specialty, I think I could spot civility and wikilove when I see it.--otherlleft (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh!

This revert. I should have done that in the 1st place. No way it's reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MLM article

Hi Arthur. I see you removed the addition re Helmstetter that had been added to the MLM article. While I think it still needed work, your logic regarding the reason to remove it was a little strange given that it was in response to a quote from an anonymmous article on a self-published site that was talking only about Amway, not MLM generically. On what basis do you consider it valid to include that critique but not a response from a published expert on the topic? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. The source wasn't reliable. The sentiment of the text that was removed could be included if you can find a reliable source. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's actually an internet archive version of it, i'll revert with that as source. In any case, the point remains - what makes the apologetics index page RS? It's an anonymous self-published article. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

An archive of the Amway wiki isn't any more reliable than the wiki. If there is other stuff there (pro or anti) with the same flimsy sources, then it should be treated in the same way and deleted. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the disagreement might be resolved by including any bias in the article text. "Amway representatives claim..." or something like that. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Helmstetter isn't an Amway rep. He's a PHD in motivational psychology and a published author on the topic of Amway, one of the world's largest MLMs. Still, I'm not so much concerned about him now as the AI reference in the first place. Reviewing their site they explicitly state - "You'll notice that we're not neutral"[1]. So we have an anonymous article on a self-published site that the maintainers themselves state is "not neutral". It may pass "external link" criteria, but I can't see an argument for it passing WP:RS.--Insider201283 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. That paragraph should be removed as well, unless a reliable source can be found. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in question. We can probably stop hijacking Arthur's talk page now. Feel free to post on my talk page if there's any further problems with the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sewer Cover Barnstar

		The Sewer Cover Barnstar
		You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner.

• I award this to you, Arthur Rubin, with humbleness and awe. You’ve done what I truly can not. Further, as you read through the 1925 article, you made improvements to the article, exhibiting the best of true Wikipedian spirit. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Rewrite

Hi,

Do you know of any way to address OrangeMarlin's concern that it isn't transparent enough? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Wikipedia and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. Happy editing. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "specific" was added without comment or specific consensus. (In fact, much of that section was added with only a limited consensus.) Why is it inappropriate to remove "specific" or appropriate to remove the {{disputed-section}} tag? I would be OK with the appropriate dispute tag being left on the section while the presence or absence of consensus is established. (I wouldn't be happy, as reversals, even of small sections of guidelines, should have been advertised outside the talk page of guideline.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that MBisanz seemed to leave identical notes to both myself and Tony1 within seconds of your note. I don't think the situation has gotten so bad that threats of blocks are necessary, but I guess I'm just more optimistic things can be worked out peacefully. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that. I suspect, considering MBisanz's efforts in closing contraversial AfD's, that he won't be back here, but I think the present wording of the date section should stand for a bit. Still, no warning for Lightmouse.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally all changes should be made by discussion, however, after the first or second revert of a change, future aspects of that change should be discussed. The continued warring over words or tags at MOSNUM, besides being futile since ~50% of people involved will be unhappy, is damaging for editors trying to write articles with reference to the MoS and seeing it change back and forth each day. As to Lightmouse, afaik, he hasn't edited MOSNUM since it came off protection, as always I may be mistaken, but from what I can tell he is not involved in this most recent round on the issue. MBisanz ^talk 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed delete of Serials, periodicals and journals

As i wrote there:

The article title brings together related terms that already exist in Wikipedia and then explains the difference. The distinction between serial and periodical is perhaps of some value on Serial (which includes all three - "serials include periodicals"[2]), so i've added it to that page. If anyone thinks it's important enough to add to publishing or library science go ahead and do so. Is there anything left for this page to do? --John_Abbe (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

2013

Hello Arthur. Inaugurals are indeed held on Sundays. A private cermony is held January 20th; then a public one is held January 21st. The President of the United States (and the Vice President) will indeed be administered the oath of office on Sunday. The Constitution calls for January 20th (Sunday not withstanding). Eisehower & Reagan were sworn in on Sundays (privately), then publicly the next day. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, whoever assumes office in 2013. He/she (like his/her predessors) automatically become President (and Vice President) upon the start of his/her term (oath taking or not). GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, our article said that the private taking of the oath (I wouldn't call it a ceremony) was done on Saturday or on the date legally set for the inauguration, with the formal ceremony on Monday. We can't say, with any certainty, that any ceremony is done on "Inauguration Day". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower & Reagan wer sworn-in January 20 (privately)/January 21 (publicly) in 1957 & 1985 respectively. That's a fact. January 19th, is out of the question. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reply only in Talk:2013, but you're wrong. If you insist on placing material which is unsourced and contraversial, the entire entry may need to be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in what you just did there. You continuing to ignore the Constituion & the Eisenhower, Reagan examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have supported on Graph isomorphism. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I did not see your reply to my notices on the talk page. --Tim32 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. And I concur with the other replies to your "notices"; the text you propose, although possibly appropriate to the article in part, is misleading. Atomic graphs, in chemistry, have degree at most 8, and the graph isomorphism algorithm for graphs of bounded degree is polynomial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you talk about? I did not write that GI problem is not polynomial (and for chemistry as well). What is "Atomic graphs"? Did you mean molecular graph? Anyhow the fact is that regular graphs are very important for chemistry. So, if you want to use Luks algorithm (as well as another algorithm) for chemical tasks you have to test a realization of this algorithm (the program) for regular graphs first of all. Also, the algorithm by Luks (for graphs of bounded degree) is not adopted for chemical compounds. For example, what about molecular with double bonds? Your assertion "graphs, in chemistry, have degree at most 8" is false for some molecular graphs (See, my note about Ferrocene Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 42#"Dubious reference" at Graph isomorphism (2) - edit war restarted!!!) and obviously it is false for some approaches, for example, for chemical reactions database. Also, you did not explain why you had deleted the info about SMILES?--Tim32 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Tim for inappropriate use of warning templates. If this continues, shunning may be a future strategy, but this would have to be outlined on the article talk page. 15:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not "Warning" -- I only used some reasons which may be similar with the template. Is it forbidden?--Tim32 (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi,

I saw you posting on the seduction community talk page and I thought you might be able to help out the community. One of the pages, Nick Savoy, is being deleted but we could use some votes to get the page back up. Could you help us out on that?

Thanks in advance. Your input is much appreciated. Coaster7 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, but I'm actually finding it questionable that the community is notable. Nonetheless, I find the community per the WP:CfD on Category:Seduction theorists, which I feel should not be deleted, but should be renamed. However, I'm generally honest, so I'm willing to vote against deletion of (articles on) people whom I think the world would be better off without (the people, not the articles). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are perhaps unwittingly attempting to perpetuate subtle sabotage within the "conspiracy theory" article

It is Orwellianly interesting to note that 3 editors with perhaps mathematicalish coordination have reverted my changes with zero of them commenting about the nature and quality of those changes to the conspiracy theory article. The perhaps foolish appear to be sort of stuck in a mode whereby they attempt to portray true clarity as vandalism. For safe keeping I will post the definition of "conspiracy theory" from wiktionary as evidence that editors on wiktionary accept a definition of "conspiracy theory" that is similarish to the ones I have authored today:

conspiracy theory From wiktionary:

1. A hypothesis that alleges a coordinated group are and/or were secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including atempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.

2. (dismissive) Hypothetical speculation that is dismissively represented as being untrue or outlandish.

Please do not revert my improvements again or you might be accused of violating wizarding laws. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's an "improvement" (3 editors disagree), you've reverted to your preferred form 4 times already today. If you do it again after the warning, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is an improvement then that is definitely not vandalism regardless of disagreement so the "3 revert rule" does not apply and improvements should be encouraged so you should be blocked for being illogical? And technically I have not reverted more than one time today, each edit is different as I aimed even higher improvement wise everytime. Perhaps I will consult with a committee of good gender agnostic wizards to decide how to proceed against apparent though perhaps unwittingly evilish wizards and or how to proceed against the evilish subtle wikipedia controlish. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. The three revert rule applies unless our actions are vandalism, and your are not. This is not the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sentences are inaccurate. Two or more groups of editors can all be making in good faith edits. If a small majority of three votes that 2 + 2 = 5 obviously they are wrong. Something has to be obviously vandalism for the 3 revert rule to apply and because I technically made only one revert today I have not violated that rule because of an additional reason. 208.59.112.152 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving message

You may want to update the archive message at the top of this page - I thought it possibly rude to do it myself. Seeing as it slipped past you for nearly the entire year, perhaps a more general version would suit better?--otherlleft (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot I used before MiszaBot updated it automatically. I changed "2007" to {{CURRENTYEAR}}; not precisely correct, as (according to reports) it archives according to the last datestamp, rather than the current date, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the price we pay for asking machines to do the work for us, isn't it? They're terribly stupid . . . --otherlleft (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Subst

Why not on their defining pages? We want them to be substituted at all times (see {{unsigned}} for why; the main reason is the large note saying "this template must be substituted"). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We want people to be typing {{subst:unsigned}}, not {{unsigned}}. Otherwise you get a massive group of pages like this which are draining resources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Changes to Recurrence Relations

I was wondering why my edit to Recurrence Relations was reverted. The closed form solution for a degree-2 recurrence, might not be critical to the article, but I believe it is notable enough to merit inclusion.

I'm sorry; I should have given a specific reason...I just don't agree it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SoCal Fires

Stay safe. I also live in Southern California, so I'm watching a fire on a ridgeline above me right now, but nowhere near as close as you are. Email me whenever you can, we ought to meet up someday. I'm regularly in the OC for business. Anyways, get your butt out of harm's way. ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha HA!

Just to say IT IS A HALF, you contradictory oaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.41.134 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

oh, and its 2/3 btw.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaby De Wilde

Would you like to bet that the current outbreak of SPA's editing Pantone and Meyers is him again? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

user:resess user:movingtarget b2 user:bobjohnston 1953 and maybe user:98.196.34.221 although that IP geolocates to the US, so maybe I'm wrong about who it is, but three SPA's that know the ins and outs of wikipedia all born on or around the 15th? Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be, could be. The biased and/or incorrect text they're adding seems different, though. The general idea of removing all information showing that it doesn't work is similar, but there are different edits to the details of the patent and of the incarceration. In particular, the removal of the information that he's jailed as of January 2008 is not something I recall de Wilde trying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And they're all gone.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

Thanks for the reversion. I was wondering what to do. I'm having dreadful problems with Chrome, as opening edit windows now just gives me a blank window with no text to edit, and my internet connection. Is there still a BLP violation? dougweller (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think only the word "therefore" in the December 12, 2005 entry of the timeline; it seems that, if it has a source presently listed in the article, it's only the audio recording (note; I haven't listed to the whole thing; parts were inaudible on my home computer, even at maximum volume), and it seems legally questionable, so it's WP:BLP against the judge. It would be OK if there were a source. I think there would be no dispute about the facts that (the judge found that) he didn't get along with his lawyer and that the judge found him incompetent to participate in his sentencing, but not therefore. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All of the SPA's that were the contentious editors on the article have been banned, we can probably unprotect the article now. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 artical (death section)

Just wondering, why was my edit which added the death of British actor Reg Varney, undone? The revision is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008&oldid=252285898. - The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, and possibly 2007, there is consensus that, to avoid having the article be too long to be meaningful, a person must have 9 non-English Wikipedia articles in order to be considered sufficiently notable. Reg only had 2 non-English articles when I checked. In fact, that statement is just below where you entered the information in the file; it must have been in your edit window. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)