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 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

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.

Tennis expert

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gen Jones

You made this comment: "I think I'm too involved" on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baby_Boom_Generation

My personal experience is that the GenJones discussion is highly personalized, in this case because (personal belief) it's one highly motivated individual on the other side. It seems to me that getting people to bow out of the discussion because their personal integrity is too high (or tolerance for pain is too low) is his basic method for operation.

The phenomenon of a highly motivated, single content poster for GenJones is not limited to Wikipedia. Here's some links from users on Huffington Post who seem only to post comments involving GenJones:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/JamesRandolph?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/ElectionFanatic?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/WatchingTheParade?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/wenton?action=comments http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/whyzer?action=comments

And here's an interesting classic from TheSavvyBoomer: http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/the_savvy_boomer/2007/09/sarah-g-and-gen.html

DailyKos gets them too: http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=sertam&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=50&wayback=525600&wayfront=0 http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=50&string=HowAboutThat&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=50&wayback=525600&wayfront=0 http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=Y55Y&type=comment_by&sortby=time&search=Search&count=30&wayback=1576800&wayfront=0

RollandWaters (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but this has to do with our definition of "involved admin"; I'm not allowed to take admin actions related to an article if I'm "involved" as a content editor. See Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse of administrative tools. As repairing a cut/paste move requires using the delete button, it's an administrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur, for the clarification. Is there a way to pass the issue on to a "non-involved" admin? At this point, I'm reluctant to continue the discussion with the pro-Jones contingent (if it is even a contingent.) A quick look at the GJ discussions page will document my previous attempts at "discussion" with them / him. RollandWaters (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If it hasn't been done, the next logical step is a subject RfC, to determine consensus about what should be in the generation articles. A user RfC about the offending user is a possibility, but there appears to be more than one editor name reinserting GJ stuff. Whether there is more than one editor is an open question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Arthur. A quick search did not reveal an topic on the open subject RfC page with any of the following keywords: "Boomer" "Jones" "Generation" "Baby" "Boom". If I get some time I will add a subject RfC, but will need to do the basic background research before-hand . I don't see a user RfC as being helpful as I personally have already dealt with a small handful of user names.RollandWaters (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's an increasingly vigorous debate on the delete page for Generation Jones. RollandWaters (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

support about peer review

On wikipedia I sometimes see claims so concise they seem less informative. Could one delineate ground for the view that these two journals are not peer reviewed?

The Open Civil Engineering Journal

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

The journals themselves might state they involve peer review. CS appears to have some information. More importantly, the sentence in the article is characterizing what Jones has published, not characterizing the question of what peer reviewed articles have been published. There is no rule in WP that suggest articles should be vague (black or white) in describing what an author has published. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question was raised May 20. I'm still interested and question is still active and relevant. -- --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an editor's comments is not on game

This is a good point. However, you are free to ask me to move it, or to move it yourself. Deleting an editor's comments is not on game. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice also that you editing note has the word 'manged'. You were also free to clarify your remarks, which were profoundly off point, and undermining of good faith. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have moved it to a completely different section, but there was no way to determine which comment you intended to attach the comment. (IMHO, it didn't make any sense in that section, but, even if it were sensible, it would be pure speculation on my part as to where it belongs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Frank "You Scum" Hayes

"Cute, the guitar part is cute"

And true. It's as a common a running gag as the malady itself. See Frank's own bio from Duckon: “By 1983 or so, my ability to forget had reached legendary status,” Frank writes. “Some filkers claimed they got temporary amnesia just from sitting in the same room as me. On one amazing (but true) occasion, Heather Alexander borrowed a guitar, not knowing it was mine–and promptly forgot a song she had known for years.” -- http://www.filking.net/filkfaq/what-is-frank-hayes-disease/

"but the other edit, although actually used in filkdom, is not appropriate on Wikipedia"

So even tho that's his actual nickname, he has been been credited that way both on records and in song (Murray Porath's rebuttal to "Cheap lawyer"), the name is inappropriate? I find that curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbartilucci (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Murray's rebuttal to "Cheap lawyer". Still, even if an affectionate nickname, it touches on our WP:BLP, so requires a reliable source, such as actual credits on (printed) record/tape/album/whatever notes. The FAQ seems an adequate source for the association of the "disease" with the guitar, though, especially if phrased correctly, and attributing a corrected version of that comment ("further research", indeed) to the FAQ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

productivity

I notice some of your hard work on WP. It would be good if all CD editors could work on civility, explanation, and less frequently stamping out one line judgments, 'parental' directives, and subject changes. Its a problem not just at CD. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. 911 and other contraversial topics seem to bring out the worst in editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Generation Jones. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jumping to act

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_out_of_process_category_renames. Debresser (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Merge_templates. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On a personal note. Thumbs up for undoing your edits. That is a hard thing for an editor to do, and I admire you for it. I hope we'll meet again in the near future, since I feel sure the discussion will continue. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates

How does it break grammar?

Without wishing to WP:OWN, I pretty much created, and pretty much maintain, these category structures, and the reason I used "since" instead of "from" for some of them is that I was expecting someone to jump down my throat if I used "from" and the first category in the series contained earlier items. This was a bad reason and I am grateful to Debresser for starting the work to bring them back into line, minor though it may seem. These are ephemeral housekeeping categories, we could have made a far more complex transition leaving the May 2009 and earlier categories as they are and making future ones "from" but this would have been a Bad Idea - for obvious reasons. Also note that William doesn't really care about this he just wants my name on ANI. It is his way of conducting himself on WP. Rich Farmbrough, 13:47 25 May 2009 (UTC).

We now have a lot of articles showing up with red-linked categories. Please restore the templates. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Your "minor housekeeping" edits is what created the 2 zillion redlinks. Please restore the system the way it was before you changed the structure. I'll comment at ANI when it finishes loading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Dylan Avery

Hi Arthur — Given that the whole list of people is probably already a bit too long, I agree with you not to list redirects in {{911ct}}.

I'll set up a subcategory "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories". We should link to this subcategory in {{911ct}}, and then significantly reduce the list of notable proponents in the template. I'd be glad to discuss with you who would be the (maybe 15 to 20) most notable proponents.  Cs32en  01:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of something I didn't do

I am not engaged in an "edit war" on the 2009 article, if you think I was doing it, you're probably mistaking me for someone else. I didn't revert 3, 4, or more edits on the 2009 article (in fact, I did't revert any changes that weren't vandalism), and I DON'T like people accusing me of things I didn't do (who does???). I also don't vandalize articles, I'm not that kind of person. And, if you have proof, show me. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My notes indicated that you added the same entry three times. It seems that that isn't correct. If it had been correct, at least the latter two would have been "reversions" for the purpose of the 3RR rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A little something I put together

User:NRen2k5/UBX/911_Truth

I thought you might like it. ;) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

date delinking abstain

Hi Arthur,

While writing a reply to yet another recusal demand, it struck me that I have voted on aspects of the case that relate to you in spite of the fact that we had an unpleasant interaction a long time ago.[1]

I've reviewed the incident ^{1 2}, and I no longer feel comfortable voting on aspects of the case that relate to you, so I have moved to abstain.[2]

My apologies for this; I will alert the other arbitrators so that they more carefully review this part of the proposed case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2010 article

You have threatened to block me for reversion in an edit war which I didn't start, and in which you yourself are a participant -- thus, in effect, using your supposedly independent official powers as a weapon to defend your own personal argument. This looks to me like a reportable offence. Expect to hear more. --PL (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I threated to report you for reversion in an edit war. It should be noted that the reporter's reversion actions are also noted in analyzing such reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Number edits

its ok, i may have been too hasty in assuming what is standard procedure. all i want to know is this: how do i sign up to be on the number project? is it just adding my name to the list on that page? ill read the link you provided. oh, and i also want to know if there is consensus about where to list nonmathematical uses of numbers (like levis 501, etc). do we put them on a disambig page, do we put them in the number article in "other uses", do we always put a DABlink on the year for the number page, any major uses (like 501's or 86'd), and all other uses, ie xxx (disambiguation)? i want to fix the articles, and personally i hate having all those cultural references on a page devoted to mathematics. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You sign up just by entering your name in the list. Announcing it on the WikiProject talk page is also a good idea.
2. For nonmathematical uses, any of the options seems acceptable, and DABlinks seem common in year articles. Usually stray uses of the number go in the number article or section, with disambig pages only being used if the number article would not otherwise exist or be a subarticle, such as 888 (disambiguation).
3. As for moving cultural references to other articles, it should be discussed on WikiProject Numbers. If you ask on the talk page, perhaps one of the older (I mean, more established) Wikipedians can point to where consensus was established. I clean out the stray jersey numbers from #Sports sections every once in a while; although we don't have consensus to remove all of them, the general rule is that only retired numbers are to be listed, and that usually in a professional league or the highest level of amature (sp? - I don't have a spell check in this browser) sports in the country. Unfortunately, NASCAR team numbers seem to be included, as are departments of France. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your forgot your smiley

I didn't get the joke in your post at WT:ACN: [3]. Could you clarify? I've certainly never used an alternate account abusively, and to the best of my recollection I've never even edited with an alternate account. (It's possible that I might at one point have created a temporary account to test admin tools and such, but I don't recall ever having done that.)

There have been occasional vandals who have used variants of my name (usually after I've blocked them, often for sockpuppetry...). Perhaps that's what you were thinking of...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Perhaps I was thinking of one of your "admirers". Do you want me to withdraw the statement? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could. It really doesn't strike me as helpful for other admins to be lobbing accusations of abusive sockpuppetry at me in front of the ArbCom. To be honest, I'm kind of put out that you didn't do any fact-checking before making such a statement. I mean, it's fine if you disagree with the comments I made at ACN, but it's not classy to casually attack my reputation. How would you feel if I dismissed any of your remarks with a "well, wasn't Arthur Rubin found to be an abusive sockpuppet at one time?" (Disclaimer: I haven't checked your record; I just assume that you never sockpuppeted abusively.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was accused of sockpuppeting abuseively, but the the alleged sockpuppet was another independent established account. The checkuser request came back "are you kidding?" — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

competitive intelligence

I see that you've decided my little contribution to this article was "unhelpful." I am puzzled by this. Having working in the business intelligence field for almost 15 yrs., I see a very distinct difference between it and "competitive intelligence." I was tempted to re-write the piece to say that competitive intelligence is quite different from business intelligence, but tried simply to show how the two can be differently focused. The former is of course about someone's competitors, and may not have any information about your enterprise at all. It may for instance reveal their plans for a new product. The latter may have everything to do with your own operation, e.g. the number of hires made, customer complaints, sales made by type of article and store, etc. etc.,...and nothing at all to do with the competition. Just wondering how you arrived at your conclusion. As brief as the current entry is, it really doesn't provide much information about its subject, and shedding a bit more light on it seems "helpful." 206.112.75.239 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)dziskie

sources for notability are other truther organizations?

I would have assumed that CS's sources were from news outlets. Am I mistaken? We have your AE911 note:

Almost all of your sources for notability are other truther organizations, even those who think this one is totally wrong.

I see that CS stated he was confused by your note. I don't see your reply to defend your characterization of his sources. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One would have assumed CS's sources were from news outlets, if one didn't check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts are an insult to you?

Here are the facts of this silly matter:

1. I changed the Inflation article to read that inflation IS and not only CAN BE bad for the economy. Arthur Rubin reverted that and stated it is NONSENSE.

2. I left this message on his talk page: Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as not to use insulting language like nonsense as you recently did on the Inflation article.

3. He responded that the truth is sometimes insulting.

4. I deleted my first comment on his talk page and left a second that I will call him Mr Nonsense from now on.

I was being polite to Arthur Rubin. He carried on insulting me. I do not see you reprimanding him. Then I tried to put an end to the event with a joke. You do not accept that. Now show us that you are fair: Go and threaten Arthur Rubin with a banning order for stating that my contribution is NONSENSE. Or is fairness not a Wikipedia value. Or can I now freely tell contributors here on Wikipedia their contributions are NONSENSE when I do not agree with them?

You are right in your defense of Arthur Rubin: It is better for me to be insulted here on Wikipedia than to try and stop the effects of an insult by means of a joke. You are 100% right: I should just have taken the insult quietly.

I apologise for my actions. I will apologise to Arthur Rubin and say yes he was right to call my contribution that Inflation is always bad for the economy NONSENSE.PennySeven (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you must know, you may have intended to do point 4, but you left additional comments attached to another section. If you had just done point 4, I would have further ignored your clearly intended insult, and let it archive normally. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What's more, I explained WHY it was nonsense in the rest of the comment. If anyone disagrees with my reasoning, please let me know. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I and the Deutsche Bundesbank disagree with your reasoning, but, I clearly, for obvious reasons, do not feel in the least inclined to discuss it with you as I do not want to receive another comment from you stating that my contribution is "nonsense." PennySeven (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 [4] in the article contradicts your statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

200 greenwich street

i do nto undertstand why you are unediting my descriptions about future world trade center buildings they are a big thing happening in the states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westmc9th (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Conjectured completion dates for the Freedom Tower are not listed in future year articles, because they are conjectured, not even planned. I don't see evidence that your dates are in any better shape, and there is no rational way that 2014 or 2036 could be relevant dates and not any date in between. (It's possible that the sources you are quoting aren't rational, but, that would require discussion before inclusion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"... incorrect changes... ".

Merry Meet and Shalom Aleichem!! My Dear Arthur, Far beit for me to post anything incorrect. For I am considered a perfectionist and a "nit-picker". As for what was "incorrect" in my posts you did not say. Am I to understand that you believe that the years A.D 1 to A.D. 524 (754 A.U.C. to 1277 A.U.C.) actually existed?? And how, pray tell, did they exist?? Were they in use?? Did somebody say, "Meet you again in A.D. 262."?? I would think not. And how about that "century" thing?? You believe that "the 1st century" actually ran from A.D. 1 to A.D. 100. You do realise that with the advent of the Arabic numbers and specifically the number zero ("0") that the calendar system would automatically recalibrate to include A.D. 0 and 0 B.C. . As a result the rest of the world have been celebrating the advent of a new century in the years A.D. 900, A.D. 1000, A.D. 1100, A.D. 1200, A.D. 1300, A.D. 1400, A.D. 1500, A.D. 1600, A.D. 1700, A.D. 1800, A.D. 1900, & A.D. 2000. I am sorry but this is the truth. Alas, this means that I can not contribute at this time. Everything from me would be considered... "incorrect". I will have to study this for awhile. I will need my own space to express myself in. Thank you, Aleichem Shalom, and Blessed Be Y'All!! Tuesday, 9th of June, 2009 CE Tuesday, 20th of June, 6025 XIII @ 12:04 UTC . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinfield (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

0. As can be seen, Wikipedia, at least, doesn't start lists with "0".

1. The "invention" of the 0 in Western Europe has no effect on year numbering as defined in Western Europe. That it did is a myth, mentioned in the [[Year zero[[ article.
2. Perhaps years before 525 should be noted as being retroactively numbered (not quite proleptic (sp?), in that the years and days of the year were set by Julius Caeser), in the sense that astromomers use a variation of the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Even so, years before the Julian calendar was created would be proleptic. Still, the time interval now denoted 200 BC undoubtably existed, whatever the natives called it, and we can discuss what happened then.
3. I shouldn't have called your edits "vandalism"; there is a recurrent banned editor whose similar edits are clearly vandalism, but yours may be a good faith misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion that from your previous comments I think you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

please list the peacock terms so they can be addressed

please list the peacock terms so they can be addressed in the article's talk so they can be addressed. ThanksJ. D. Redding 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

remove some invention book tags?

I was going to remove peacock=y|refimprove=y from the top. Please respond shortly if you have concerns still. J. D. Redding 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1994 band

Regarding your reversion of my entry about the Karen Lawrence band 1994 that I put under the 1000 (number) article: There is some discussion on the band on her article, so that is why I put in the reference to her. (It is mistakenly called "1994:", I guess because there was a colon on one of the album covers by the band but not the other one). It is a real band that released two albums on a major record label (I have a copy of one of them), so I don't understand why you would delete the reference entirely even if the Karen Lawrence reference is unsourced. Shocking Blue (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Direct Selling/ACN

Jut an FYI, contrary to your comment there is quite a large article on ACN and it is listed in the disambiguation page, so you must have missed it. Whether it's one of the largest direct selling companies is another point though. I've found and added revenues and it would appear not.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16#Category:Articles to be split

I do not understand your comments of 20:33, 17 June 2009. The 2008 discussion was not speedy (it was 13 days, with few comments, and general agreement). Your suggestion seems a tautology. Clarify? -- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad. However, it probably would have qualified as a C1 delete, as it was filled by a template error, and then created. It almost certainly had been empty since the nomination. However, 2 comments does not a "discussion" make. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

Hey Arthur Rubin, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:

• Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#.22Violent.22_direct_action.3F

And spilled over here:

1. Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#.22violent_direct_action.22_is_misleading
2. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Fhue_and_User:NRen2k5
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fhue

— NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)