Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 19 September 2008

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 2007 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

Status

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.

DreamGuy. Yet Again

I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input.
At the JTR dab page, I removed a reference to JTR standing for Jack the Ripper (which seems a pretty narrow field of folk who refer to it as such). Shortly thereafter, DreamGuy reverted it back in, noting "revert clearly incorrect -- the song JTR is about Jack the Ripper, used all over", which seems to address the inclusion of a song, which I had not touched.
I undid this revert, noting that the song hadn't been removed. DG responded by reverting yet again, noting that "the existence of the song and the software proves this one is legit, plus other sources".
One doesn't prove the existence of the others, at least, not the way that DreamGuy is suggesting. Now, I could simply ask DG to please discuss the edits, which he would (as per his regular schtick) ignore. As that seems to be counter-productive (it resulted in you blocking me for "baiting"), I am going to set this matter entirely in your lap. Hopefully, you can provide some illumination to DG that neither I nor anyone else seems capable of doing. My only other step is to again report him for contentious editing. I certainly don't want to be accused of edit-warring or baiting. I am going to wait and see how someone who sat in judgement of me handles the same sort of situation., - Arcayne () 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of Jack the Ripper in the disambiguation page of JTR. A simple google search, like this one: shows it to be a common and widely used abbreviation for the phrase. It's a simple entry, extremely well supported. Google itself will prompt the user searching for the single term JTR to click on Jack the Ripper as a related term. That JTR is widely used as an acronym for Jack the Ripper is a fact.

Arcayne has failed to elicit a single editor in his quest to delete the encyclopedic record of the general public's use of the abbreviation JTR, indeed he's made no attempt at all. This is simply a continuation of his attack on DG, one done without even a hint of consensus or intellectual basis. No amount of wikilawyering or continued forum shopping will overcome the basic fact: JTR is commonly used by a wide audience as an abbreviation of the phrase "Jack the Ripper". Therefore it's inclusion in the JTR disambiguation page is entirely consistent with all that is Misplaced Pages. But, as we all know, this has nothing to do with the acronym JTR and everything to do with Arcaynes personal vendetta against a Wiki editor. 75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your pot-kettle comment, Anon-Who-Stalks-My-Edits. Were I interested in the slightest in feeding you (or indeed, in your comment whatsoever), I would have directly solicited it. I am not going to disturb Arthur's page by arguing the point here. When reverted, a person is to go directly to the discussion page, to provide an argument for their edit, not engage in edit-warring. We don't rely on Google, as results from there can be manipulated by a small group of fans. Were you actually interested in editing, instead of focusing your edits on attacking me, you might have discovered that by now. - Arcayne () 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a requirement that Editors may only post when previously invited by Arcayne. Nor is it acceptable for Arcayne to have whichever Edit or Revert he chooses and all others must create a discussion and seek consensus to change it. Has the thought ever occurred to you to seek consensus before you act? The question was simply is JTR an acronym for Jack the Ripper - Google is an excellent source for demonstrating common usage. Add this: A list of JTR acronyms from the Dictionary.75.57.171.204 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating an alternative, Arthur. I am not sure how long it will last, but it seems a good effort. As well, thanks for mostly ignoring the anon troll. I certainly try. - Arcayne () 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem still remains, Arthur. DG is talking about an apparent consensus that I am not seeing, and is at his 3rd revert for the day (I have stopped at two, as undoing the revert again isn't going to have any effect, and might be seen by an admin as baiting). Are you seeing one? What would be the appropriate next step at this point? - Arcayne () 15:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, the edit has been the consensus edit for over two years now. Here is the page from 2006:. It's just a common use of the term and has long term community consensus. Arcayne has made 'no attempt to gain a new' community consensus - His edits have been a heavy handed and unilateral reverting of the long held consensus. He is baiting and acting in a very un-wiki manner while trying to wikilawyer himself into a "win". Arcaynes actions in this matter do not further the best interests of the Encyclopedia or the civility and respect for long standing community consensus needed to build it.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I decided it might be best to avoid even the slightest appearance of baiting, edit-warring, annexing the Sudetenland, whatever, by bringing an emerging problem to you for your immediate input." -- LOL -- so running off to another editor with a history of personal conflict for no reason to try to establish a mob action instead of following Misplaced Pages policy is Arcayne's idea of not showing edit-warring, etc. The only reason he left this here was specifically so he COULD edit war, and to do so through wikilawyering b getting someone else to do a revert on his behalf to avoid being blocked again like the last time he pulled this stunt. Man, talk about an editor who clearly does not get Misplaced Pages policies in the slightest.

I would hope, Arthur, that you in the future remove yourself from such obvious and clear tag teaming, especially considering your history of teaming up with Arcayne and also the fact that you unblocked him last time long before his block was supposed to expire solely so you could forge yet another fake consensus on a talk page while I was unable to respond.

All in all it'd be nice if the people who are only editing out of personal conflicts would stay the heck away from any JTR-related article space. Certainly if your goal is to pretend you are editing in good faith, these actions do not support that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not tag-teaming if your actions which are reverted are against Misplaced Pages guidelines, which I believe they are. There seems to be a weak consensus in favor of Arcayne, and against you. Please read WP:Cabals instead of WP:Tag team, for a more rational view, and don't assume that you're always right and other editors are always wrong or violating Misplaced Pages policies. As for my actions, if admins with a conflict with an editor in one venue were prevented from acting in another venue, then some tag teamers would be safe from reprisal because there would be no admins left. I brought up my block of you for ANI review, and the consensus is you should both have been block for 96 hours, instead of the 48. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Novus Ordo Seclorum

Can you please read the wiki page on Novus Ordo Seclorum ?

And then and only then explain why the link is not appropiate, as in my opinion it removes bias leading the reader to make up their own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadinggrid (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NWO needs to be disambiguated, and the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is obviously correct, with Novus Ordo Seclorum being correct only if he specifically uses that term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

So why did you block Jay for no reason? --harej 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to that too. I informed Jay. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am curious as well. —Animum (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was angry; I shouldn't have blocked, but he clearly shouldn't have unblocked. I forgot that misuse of admin tools is not grounds for blocking, except on an emergency basis, but only should be brought up at RfAr. The fact that I've previously been blocked for use of admin tools (later found justified) shouldn't have effected my decision, but I'm afraid it did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, you shouldn't have blocked him, that is an understatement. At this point I'd like to know what Jay thinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh. See, I believe that my unblock of Betacommand was clearly justified, and I explained why very clearly, and said I would initiate an RFC on myself if people feel that was appropriate. We can disagree civilly, without the need for punitive blocking. I think this block indicates you are unsuitable as an admin, but I'll leave you to decide how to address that. John Vandenberg 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this being discussed anywhere else? I am happy to let this matter subside but I would appreciate knowing if there is an ongoing discussion about it. John Vandenberg 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's moot, unless someone were to reblock Beta if it were found the unblock to be improper. However, I don't see any rational reading of either the ArbComm or community prohibitions which would allow him to do what he apparently did. (I haven't checked the complete edit log, so I have to use "apparently".) Nor has anyone else other than you and beta. To assume it was not intended to be covered, would require the assumption that the community wanted beta to edit rashly, as long has he didn't use any automated tools. I think that requires a lack of good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But I really don't see any support for your position in ANI/beta. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, blocking another admin out of anger for unblocking someone you are clearly unhappy with is clear-cut abuse, and, your status as an admin should really be revisited at the appropriate noticeboard, or, RFC depending on preference. SQL 05:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I've been watching this since it happened. But I'm not sure that this is ready for AN/I or RfC. Jay doesn't really appear to care (although I could be wrong). Synergy 05:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do care, but not enough to want a desysop over something that has been self-corrected. If this protestation continues that only myself and Beta support the unblock, we probably have at least an RFC on our hands. John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for SQL (though I doubt its what he meant), but this is not the intention. I think what we were trying to say, is that such actions should be presented to the community for discussion. I don't want to leave you with the impression that this is whats being asked. Synergy 06:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'm sorry for the confusion. These actions, need to be brought to the scrutiny of the community, for review. That being said, blocking out of revenge is not how we operate here, and, is not acceptable, from member of our community that is supposed to be trusted to make judgment calls regarding this type of action. SQL 06:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with Arthur's background, but I do know that his block of Jay was totally inappropriate. If this is the only transgression of concern, I think we can drop this. If it's not, an RFC on Arthur may be in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1337

|-|ELL0. 7h1$ 15 |2|_|th L4|2M0r3. i aM 53n|)i|\|9 '/0U t|-|i5 |\/|3$5@GE +0 i|\||=0|2|\/| j0U \/\/|-|4t 1337 15. 17 15 t|-|E EL1t3 L4N9u@9e 0f +|-|3 1|\|73|2|\|E7 U5ed 8'/ se\/Er@L tjpE$ of p30pLe $ukh @$ h@(|{er5, 5pammErs, 4|\|d/0|2 s+up1|} +EEN4ge|2s. i7 1$ \/\/|-|Er3 '/0|_| 5U8$t17u|23 |\|UM|3e|2$ @Nd 07he|2 (|-|@|2a(7e|2$ o|\| +he K3y|3oa|2|} F0r Le+7e|2$. JU$+ 7|-|0U9|-|t '/0U'd L1|{e +0 kN0w. Purplepython378 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is English Misplaced Pages. --harej 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On Vandalism

I have been watching lots of vandals and I am not sure when is the right time to warn and ban them. So can you please handle this vandal (maybe block) http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/92.18.80.192. Orion11M87 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what should be done with this user. User talk:216.14.177.97. -- Orion11M87 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no constructive edits, but I'm not convinced the IP is static, so a long-term block serves little purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced. OK, thanks for taking a look at this chronic vandal. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Really?

"I consider Ned Scott (talk · contribs) and Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) to have some of the same inability to see the obvious consensus that Beta has."

I'm just wondering what gave you this idea? I'm thinking it is related to what I'm pointing out in my comment here. You are clearly against Betacommand in general, considering your recent inappropriate block of another administrator. I'd appreciate your thoughts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Appears to be automated", and the fact that Beta has been wikilawyering his previous conditions in regard automated tools. For what it's worth, I (retroactively) support his actions (but not his comments) in the image area, once he finally described what his bots were actually doing. Most of his other bots caused damage to Misplaced Pages, leading to the bot restrictions. I have no objection to some of beta's supporters being involved, provided that some of those who have opposed beta are also involved. Otherwise, there is no appearance of fairness. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would of course completely agree with that – in fact, I've gone so far as to say that nobody who has been involved with him at all should be in the group (in my comment - diff posted above). I just left you a note because you seem to imply that I cannot judge a consensus, and for that, I wanted an explanation, as I think I'm entitled to one. I certainly have my opinions; who doesn't?, but I am capable of putting them aside to listen to others. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

kay sieverding user page/ pro se

I do not understand why my revised user page was deleted or locked. I thought that I could present myself as I wished. I included not only my email address but also my full name, address and telephone number. Why was it a problem for me to quote a petition I filed in the 8th Circuit En Banc court?

I do not understand why my revisions to the pro se page were deleted. You said that you didn't want personal information on that page and I didn't repost anything I was personally involved with. I spent an hour copying quotations from the U.S.code, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the U.S. Judicial canons etc. and all of that was deleted.

The current pro se page does not list any source for its statement that there is no right of self-representation. The quotations that I pasted in supported a right of self-representation. One of them was from the U.S. code itself and has been in the U.S. code since George Washington signed it. That was

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel

I don't see how Misplaced Pages can publish something that conflicts with the U.S. code, with no supporting authorities, and then delete the U.S. code itself.

I don't understand how it can be considered inappropriate to quote the U.S. Supreme Court. My quotations were accurate and the entire rulings are available at the Cornell Legal Institute.

I don't understand why my offering the Cornell Legal Institute, the U.S. Pacer system, and monthly case services was inappropriate or deleted.

I don't understand why my quotation of the Supreme Court of Canada about the Quebec bar association with the citation was removed from the ABA page section on criticism of the ABA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Sieverding (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In no specific order:

WP:NOT#MYSPACE; you may not write things about yourself unless relevant to Misplaced Pages.

Most, if not, of your excerpts from court decisions, the US Code, the Cornell Legal Institute, and the US Pacer system, are what we call WP:PRIMARY sources, and should not be used unless the relevance of the source to the article is supported by reliable secondary sources. (There are exceptions where primary sources are allowed, but most of those exceptions have exceptions where a real, living, person, such as yourself, is involved.)

As for the pro se page, since you seem "constitutionally" (pun intended) unable not to perform legal research, you should tag the statement that pro se litigants are not generally allowed with a {{fact}} tag. (In fact, pro se litigants are not generally allowed in civil cases, but, obviously, pro se defendants are allowed in criminal cases, with some exceptions.) Perhaps you should note some of the primary references on the article talk pages, to see if anyone can find secondary references.

I fail to see the relevance of the Supreme Court of Canada decision about the Quebec bar association to the American Bar Association. Even if state bar associations were affiliated with the American Bar Association, the Quebec bar association wouldn't be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"case law" dump?????

How can these Supreme Court cases be considered 'case law' dumps? They were combined with text that I spent time writing.These are major Supreme Court cases and U.S. code. The unsupported Misplaced Pages posting that there is no right to self representation definitely is at odds with

“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” U.S. code Title 28 Part 5 Chapter 111 § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel ---This law was signed by George Washington

“Abstract discussion is not the only species of communication which the Constitution protects; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy, certainly of lawful ends, against governmental intrusion…. a State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights… Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain… Although petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner's activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed.” NAACP v. BUTTON 371 U.S. 415 (1963) U.S. Supreme Ct. This decision was the basis of U.S. desegregation.

“We are not unaware or unconcerned that persons identified with unpopular causes may find it difficult to enlist the counsel of their choice”. SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U. S. 1 (1952) U.S. Supreme Ct.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 1st amendment

“We once again reiterate, however, as we did unanimously in Leatherman, Swierkiewicz, and Hill, that adopting different and more onerous pleading rules to deal with particular categories of cases should be done through established rulemaking procedures, and not on a case-by-case basis by the courts.” JONES v. BOCK U.S. 549 01/22/07 No. 05–7058 U.S. Supreme Ct.

“(b) Any such rule creating, abolishing, or modifying an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or effect unless approved by Act of Congress” U.S. Judiciary Act Title 28 § 2074 b

“the capacity to sue is determined …for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity by the law of the individual’s domicile.” Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17 b (1)

“Rights of suitors. § 21. (2) In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor’s choice. Every person has an absolute right to appear pro se. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. 174 Wis. 2d 381, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993). A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally.” Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. Wisconsin Supreme Court 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997)”

“Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.” Minnesota Constitution Article 1 § 8/ Wisconsin Constitution Article 1 § 9 Remedy for Wrongs

“Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441(1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster City, 488 U. S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Per Curiam VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH No. 98–1288 U.S. Supreme Ct., 2000.

“That the action of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of this Court. That principle was given expression in the earliest cases involving the construction of the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880), this Court stated:

It is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies, either by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities, and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.

In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 347 (1880), the Court observed: "A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way." In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 17 (1883), this Court pointed out that the Amendment makes void "State action of every kind" which is inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained, and extends to manifestations of "State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings." Language to like effect is employed no less than eighteen times during the course of that opinion.

Similar expressions, giving specific recognition to the fact that judicial action is to be regarded as action of the State for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be found in numerous cases which have been more recently decided. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 90-91 (1908), the Court said: "The judicial act of the highest court of the State, in authoritatively construing and enforcing its laws, is the act of the State." In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 680 (1930), the Court, through Mr. Justice Brandeis, stated:

The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.

“The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights.”

” SHELLEY V. KRAEMER U.S. Supreme Court 355 Mo. 814, 198 S.W.2d 679, and 316 Mich. 614, 25 N.W.2d 638

If you don't want these quotes because of who I am then Misplaced Pages will be at odds with the U.S. code and the Supreme Court.

Someone deleted this one too:

“The chief judge's directive at issue here clearly discriminates against pro se litigants solely on the basis of their pro se status and, in that respect, lacks any rational basis in fact and thus violates equal protection of the laws” Tassian v. People, 731 P.2d 672 (Colo. 01/20/1987)

Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

non-standard analysis

Hi,

Would you please state your concerns either at the article deletion page, or at WP math? Deleting someone's edits without discussion is an odd way of presenting your case. Katzmik (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comments at the discussion page if you get a chance. Katzmik (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Line removal

I removed the part that stated that "Nature's Destiny" contradicted "Theory In Crisis", it did not. This is a very common misunderstanding of Denton's work, he never opposed evolution, he opposed the Darwninian model of evolution..and he did this in both books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giles1234 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't comment on that, although most ID'ers refer to "evolution" as "Darwinism", so I have little doubt he's contradicted himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

• Thank you for standing up with me on these sub parts of my user page on free speech and the Fairness Doctrine. Even Jimbo believes this too (I gave him a full copy of the Pelosi letter on August 23rd). I only wish other editors could see the light of day on what is coming. Chris (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Even though the efforts to keep the Pelosi article on my user page were not successful, I am so thankful at least someone in Misplaced Pages other than Jimbo saw the light on this. As a result, I offer you this barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put in the link of the Pelosi article from my sandbox history in your link on the front of your user page since it was deleted last week. I just hope the users who deleted this article aren't crazy enough to ask for sandobx to be deleted, but I have seen stranger things happens in Misplaced Pages. Chris (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

non-standard calculus

There is a dispute regarding the proof of the intermediate value theorem. Please comment. Katzmik (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

standard part function

If you get a chance please amplify the discussion there. Katzmik (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Transfer principle

I noticed that the article on the transfer principle has vanished or more precisely has been redirected to a section in hyperreal number. The redirect was preceded by various negative comments about the article stub that existed there. Certainly that sketch (which I probably wrote most of) wasn't very good, but I believe it was more accurate than what exists now. I've sort of given up on edit wars, and discussions about article quality. I certainly don't care if people say the article sucked, but I do think some semblance of accuracy is important. Perhaps you might want to look into this. Thanks. --CSTAR (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. I think what you had there is more accurate than what there is now, and, in addition, there are transfer theorems in set theory, such as the "Jech/Sochor" and "Pincus". (I found a link to a page of my mother's book, Consequences of the Axiom of Choice, which suggests there is something there in note 103 of that book.) I'd always seen application of those transfer theorems referred to as transfer principles.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am always in favor of succinctness, so I would suggest the page on the transfer principle should be recreated. I'll slug it out for you :) Incidentally, Hardy made an intesting criticism of the term "internal object" at the standard part function talk page. Any suggestions? Katzmik (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually find some of the verbiage at the transfer principle section of hyperreals helpful, and some of it redundant. Fearlessly I recreated the transfer principle page based on the material at hyperreals. It will obviously need to be edited to remove the redundancy. Please add the material from the old version that's not there. Katzmik (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I added the old version, as well. Please delete redundant material. Incidentally, were you aware of Bishop-Keisler controversy? Katzmik (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to my comment at talk page of transfer principle. Katzmik (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC) and again Katzmik (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50 is editing Function_(mathematics) again

He's probably well intentioned, but he writes all sort of tangential stuff, about GPGPU macros and what not. I'm really busy with real life this weekend, so I cannot flag his section over and over... If you have some time, please keep and eye on his edits. Thanks, VasileGaburici (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Only to let you know, I'd say we do agree that this kind of thing goes too far and removing it was helpful. I hadn't seen what had been thrown into those other sections of the article (as an aside, I'm wholly neutral about whether to say he's known for "conspiracy theories"). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gb

Hello Arthur Rubin, was this a mistake? I can't see any vandalism. --Oxymoron 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering the same thing. Maybe you clicked on the wrong username? Tiptoety 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<embarassed> Yep. I was trying to block an IP returning to vandalism (probably at the start of the school year), and I blocked the last person to block him, instead. (And then I went on to install a system upgrade, so I wasn't online.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Have a present. ;-) _Gb 15:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

er, Arthur... You're a good guy and whatnot, and its good to have you about, but can you please use a little more caution with the admin tools? Between your blocking log and your blocked log, the impression of a troubled administrator is hard to avoid. It looks like the Jay thing above didn't result in an RfC, but you have to be aware that you're on the leading edge here. Avruch 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Arthur is really a good person, and happens to make a mistake. Is it too hard to forgive? — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Clearly an honest mistake (check the logs and you'll see that the next block he made was the one he intended to make first time around), and something any of us could have done. To err is human..._Gb 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that. It happens, not a big deal. My note was more a general caution that I guess is more appropriate to the thread above, but since this other bit was here I thought I'd leave it at the bottom of the page instead. Arthur is definitely a good guy, like I said above, and does more work and better work certainly than I have in awhile. I just would like him to not get run out on a rail, and that means he needs to be more careful ;-) Avruch 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gb, I agree, and nice present, is it for eating? Can I get one too? LOL Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another SPA Jonty Haywood sockpuppet

See PLUSChelmo (talk · contribs · count) and note the list of "creators" on his NN drinking game article. OhNoitsJamie 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem

Hi, Is there a proof of the above using the hyperreals? Katzmik (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blockhead blockage

Greetings!

You have suggested that I might be blocked. Feel free to block me at any time.

Bukowski99 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

request for arbitration pro se page

Current requests

Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes 'Initiated by Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk)atSelf-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Involved parties Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Famspear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Non Curat Lex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) When I found the "pro se" page, it contained statements that were contrary to the U.S. code and Supreme Court statements. No sources were cited for the misrepresentations. I pasted in the U.S. code and Supreme Court cases concerning the subject both with footnotes and they were repeatedly deleted by "Non Curat Lex", "Famspear" and/or "Arthur Rubin". One of them also deleted a quotation, with references, from the ABA journal interviewing Justice Scalia. They appear to have an agenda of wanting Misplaced Pages to keep these Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. code, and Justice Scalia's statements secret. They keep calling Supreme Court decisions "primary sources" and "case dumps". In other articles on legal issues, Supreme Court decisions are simply summarized or quoted with footnotes. One of them deleted a Supreme Court discussion of William Penn. It does not appear that they have posted anything with any footnotes. I deleted only a few unsupported sentences that were contrary to the Supreme Court and the U.S. Code. My character is being attacked for adding quotations of the U.S. code, Supreme Court and various constitutions. I don't know what to do but I hate to see Misplaced Pages spreading misinformation. I don't have a problem with them posting laws, cases, quotations etc. but they are not posting verifiable authorities, they are just deleting my verifiable major authorities and criticizing me personally. They also deleted a scholarly U.S. 2nd circuit decision that quoted 2 law review articles and 4 history books. Much of what they deleted they removed to "sub pages". I don't have all the Misplaced Pages formatting figured out and I tried to post a request for style. I guess I did that wrong somehow because it didn't appear but they wouldn't help me do that right. All that I want to do is make sure that the U.S. code and relevant Supreme Court decisions are posted so that Misplaced Pages users see them. I thought the Justice Scalia interview was relevant and that the deleted 2nd Circuit discussion of history was much better than the postings without footnotes that it supplemented. There is extensive discussion on the article discussion board. Some of it they removed to subpages

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Please see this page and add any statements or comments that you consider necessary. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

functions

For the n times I will tell you that it is not in your place, status or as any significant citizen to deem, consider or judge or even moreso, stereotype upon the entire electrical engineering and graphics industry of what is notable or not notable. Mine as well stop acting so immature. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your additions have been removed by about 5 different editors. Although I can't yet say there is a formal WP:CONSENSUS that they don't belong, there certainly is enough of one that you could be blocked for those addtions (although not by me, as an involved admin). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't play dumb and hide and seek with me ludicrous, trying to synthesize something which isn't there. My works are submitted at September 4 19:23. It is clearly seen that the work are roughly 2000 bytes, everytime I revert you are the only one who undo it until the present. By the way undoing it without any discussion of talk pages, obviously show you are totally stereotypical and have nothing to offer when I already discuss this with Dominus, whon is the first one to brought up the contribs. By the way Misplaced Pages policy didn't state that dissapproval of works must be removed. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again and again I need to tell you to mature up and stop posting fake adminstrators warnings. Such naive act you put on. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am referring to the signifcant paragraph or the purpose (the paragraph).

Again and again I need to tell you to mature up and stop posting fake adminstrators warnings. Such naive act you put on. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50, pardon me, but I flagged your contribution for deletion as well. If you look at the talk page of the article, you'll see that yet another two editors (User:Jitse_Niesen and User:Dominus) could not figure out what you were trying to achieve with the section you wrote. So, no, Arthur Rubin is not the only editor to think the material you contributed was inappropriate. It so happens that he pressed the undo button, but that doesn't mean your edit would not have been reverted by others. Instead of taking it personally, please discuss the matter on article's talk page. P.S.: If you look at Arthur's picture, he seem mature enough... VasileGaburici (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any similarity...

Do you see any similarity between the edits of Inigmatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Protomoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I looked for a while, and it didn't seem like it to me, but I wanted to ask if someone more familiar with Money and Currency could compare the two.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Without further research, I lean against. In money, Protomoney was pushing the assertion that "money" has to be officially certified, and cannot be only bullion, while Inigmatus was pushing the NESARA (hoax) definition of money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Ingmatus also contributed heavily to the NESARA pages a while ago, and that might be worth looking at. I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't sockpuppetry on related ideas on Money. If you don't think there's any particular concern here on that account I won't worry about it. Thanks for your input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Money

Sorry about that. I didn't realize there was an anti-money talk in talk. I reworded the intro based on the intent of the source to simply define terms based on a null-system hypothesis and not come off as sounding like it came from that anti-money crowd. Looking at the arguments in talk, I can certainly understand the apprehension for my apparently out of left field insert into the article. I'm all for fiat currency (it's the only way a modern economy can work). The definition for money, though, I thought, should be clear for readers as being a concept first, represented by things "used as" money second. The uses of the term "standard" and "concept" in the article are proof that the concept of money is not adequetely addressed. I look forward to contributing what I can to the article and discussion. :) inigmatus (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise. Thanks! inigmatus (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was curious as to what specific criteria that Barnard's book fails as a source. Also I am curious as to how you can claim "money is a concept" is not a quotable when clearly other sources state it absolutely. Perhaps I should move the specific reference to the exact part of the phrase it supports? inigmatus (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnard is apparently not an economist, as far as I can tell, so his book fails credibility as a source unless published through a "scientific" economics imprint. And "money is a concept", by itself, is a nullity. It also fails grammar, as "money" needs to be quoted. You would need a reputable source that currency is not money, or an example of "money", but is, instead, an "exemplar" of "money". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the only sources that are credible for Money are economists who have their work published in a "scientific" economics imprint? If so, that seriously limits the presentation on information concerning the matter; and I would of course recommend the deletion of the entire section on "Concept of Money" since I do not know of any "scientific" economist who has published these ideas in an imprint. Assuming of course this is the only criteria for sources in the Money article. I also do not think it will be easy to find anyone who writes out "currency is NOT money," since not even Barnard says such. He and others simply point out of the obvious: currency is used as money, but for simplicity sake we just drop the "used as" and thus say "currency is money." You may call it a semantic non-saying or other such gibberish, but the case was made in talk that understanding that money is a concept is key to understanding money period, and how currencies are accepted and circulated. You may not think it's notable enough for even a clarification in the article, but the application of the missing term "used as" is evident everywhere things used as money is talked about. If anything, the definitions currently talked about in the article besides the Concept section, are simply talking about the effects of money, not definition of money itself. Case in point: prove that money is equal to the term "medium of exchange" - and if so, why isn't medium of exchange directed back to money? inigmatus (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"You may call it a semantic non-saying…"

Exactly. If a reputable economist, or a reputable economics book, says that money is a "concept", it might be considered for the article.

And medium of exchange is not exactly the same as (examples/exemplars) of money. I admit to pushing it, but an item subject to spoilage might be considered a medium of exchange, but would not be considered money, as it is not a "store of value". Also, a cheque, which is claimed to be a medium of exchange, is clearly not money, but it represents money. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the "acceptance" of things "used as money" is a notable concept for explanation in the article on money? Most consider the acceptance of things used as money is obvious for its definition, but it's the separation of the concept from the things "used as money" that is not so obvious to many when it comes to money theory, and I think it would be an appropriate piece of information in the article. It is often inferred in economics materials, and in many cases outrightly stated. It need not its own article, but at least an honorable mention in money - and I think Dr. Barnard's source is notable and verbose enough to explain it. If you want a different source, I posted some; but I want to know first what you think of including a phrase that hints that money is a concept that can be separated from things used as money. inigmatus (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider it a philosphical construct, as to whether we have:

• A. The concept of money
• B. money

or

• A. Money
• B. Things used as money.

(I'll convert this to a table when I get the chance, after looking up WikiTable syntax.)

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

However, in history of money, tracing the history of the concept of money may be different than the history of things used as money, but there's no reason the article shouldn't contain both, if they can be appropriately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd Ore's harmonic number

Why ? 1 is a trivial odd Ore's harmonic number. "no odd Ore's harmonic numbers (except for 1)" might be misinterpreted as saying there exists a single one of unspecified value, so maybe "no odd Ore's harmonic numbers above 1" would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 1 is Ore's harmonic number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for your pipe to harmonic. Ore's harmonic number redirects to Harmonic divisor number. See http://www.ams.org/mcom/2007-76-259/S0025-5718-07-01933-3/home.html#Abstract. Harmonic number (disambiguation) also mentions this definition. Maybe it would be better to use the article name as in "no odd harmonic divisor numbers greater than 1". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was editing another talk page with a number of edit conflicts. But is 1 an example of Ore's harmonic number? Actually, the whole thing was a mistake. I've reverted. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

UNLINKING DATES

Personnally I don't agree with unlinking all the dates anyway but since it met consensus I am only unlinking the dates as they appear and then someone can go back later and change the format if need be. I asked for a week and knowone said anything so finally I just started going. I knew someone would say something eventually. Besides all that we shouldn't need to wait to unlink it just because we don't know what format to use. Like I said before we can always change the format later.--Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can't go back. Unlinking can be done automatically. Linking cannot, as there is only 1 September... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't understand that.--Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is only 1 September" is an example of a phrase where "1 September" should not be linked, regardless of any linking policy. It's not well-written, as "1" should be "one", per other MOS guidelines, but that shows auto-creating links cannot be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to go back and relink the dates anyway, the consensus was that dates should not be linked. As I said before I don't even agree with it but if the community says that they should be unlinked then ok, I will do what I can to pitch in and follow the wishes of the community. Although I will admit that many pages have alot of unnecessary date links I think that unlinking the dates will cause more harm than good in the long run.--Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'll fix that and I have stopped editing dates for now.--Kumioko (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

virtual reality and happiness

Hello!

Is it possible to put the following entry in this article? http://education.vsnl.com/nimbkar/vr.html

Thanks and regards. Akraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akraj (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. It says it's an editorial from the Times of India, but I, personally, don't consider editorials a reliable source. However, even then, it would need to be taken from a reliable site, which yours is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC comment

Regarding your comment:

"I don't think this is appropriate as a user conduct RfC, but as a Misplaced Pages content RfC."

Your first remark regarding WP:CHILL is precisely what I was getting at with the RfC. All I asked for initially was that people hold off on the mass edits until we could discuss the issue further. Several editors involved in the dispute started off pointing to a particular bug report on bugzilla that had gone unanswered for a long time, as evidence that there was no point in further discussion of the issue (because the developers "didn't care" about the issue.) After I provided the requested patch (a few hours later) they changed their tune and insisted that no technical solution was going to be acceptable. I prefer that we keep date autoformatting, but have been open the entire time to a consensus decision to disable it. I've even provided an additional patch to disable it entirely (no change to raw format, no linking of dates) so that we could quickly test that rather than editing hundreds of thousands of articles, but again no interest. Sapphic from the Database Analysis WikiProject is currently compiling comprehensive statistics on date formatting in articles, which will hopefully allow us to gauge the scope of the problem (inconsistent date formats is a real problem that nobody disputes) but now Tony1 is even arguing that we shouldn't gather those statistics. It's impossible to carry on meaningful discussion on this issue while Tony1 (and a few others, but he's the worst offender) continues to unlink dates en-masse and to block all attempts at a fix. I was about completely fed up and at a loss as to how to proceed, and appreciated reading your outside view on the matter (the others that argue for date autoformatting are irritating to me because they miss the point, which I think is about Tony1's behavior) made me feel better. Thank you. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

first order logic

Hi, Hope all is well. I am a bit confused about the idea of representing everything in first order logic, could you try to straighten me out? Take, for example, the well-known result that a connected, simply-connected planar domain is necessarily homeomorphic to a disk. It seems that a quantifier reformulation of this would involve both the existence and the universal quantifier over higher-order objects (i.e. sets and maps). How does the transfer principle apply to this type of proposition? Katzmik (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spore reference in number 42

You have deleted references to the video game Spore in the number 42 page several times now by several different people. As there is a heading for Video games, what makes you think that this is not a valid point to be put in this article? Valacan (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are few (if any) other numbers in the game, it's not notable, even in the context of the game. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced there's more than one person involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to log in so the very last change was done by me. But Snugg was another one and the other unknown one could be someone else as well. Anyway, I replied to your post in the number 42 talk page for more info on why 42 is special in that game. 99.224.225.49 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Valacan (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

infinity

Hi Arthur, please reply to my comment concerning your edit at talk:non-standard calculus. Katzmik (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory talk page headers

Hi Artur, I'm not sure why you used rollback to revert this edit. It seems reasonable and good faith. Best regards. Checkeroffacts (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)