Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 15 August 2012

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 2025 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

Status

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Main page appearance: pi

This is a note to let the main editors of pi know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 22, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 22, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

π (or pi) is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although it is roughly approximated by 22/7. It is a transcendental number – a number that cannot be produced with a finite sequence of algebraic operations (sums, products, powers, and roots). The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and ruler. The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random. Because its definition relates to the circle, π is found in many formulae in trigonometry and geometry, such as Euler's identity, e + 1 = 0. It is also found in formulae from other branches of science, such as cosmology, number theory, statistics, fractals, thermodynamics, mechanics, and electromagnetism. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

David Weigel

Sir, that was some poor editing on your part. I found the correct url in a few seconds time, adding your tagging blather was silly, I suggest you try fixing articles before making such edits, the rest of us are not your lackeys tasked with fixing errant edits from experienced editors like yourself.--Milowent • 11:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried Yahoo! News search a number of times, using different keywords, before tagging. I admit I didn't try archive.org, but still, one would expect Yahoo!'s search engine to index Yahoo! News. Now, I didn't check who added the link, but the IP in question is known for misinterpreting (if not always outright lying) about the contents of links he wants to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move review

Are you aware of the move review on the Las Vegas, Nevada move? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

in conclusion, how about rotating the labels

oh, I remembered and I think this is the last one. The most funny interpretation is "to rotate the labels". According to this interpretation, if one rotates the labels with the angle α, the species rotates with α when defined on n labels. Here the link with the polynomial machine is broken.

-(-X)) = X but X-X does not simplify.

no article to vandalise ! Best Regards, Nicolae-boicu (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To rotate the labels one needs to rotate the variables of the cycle index and to do this one needs to rotate the natural numbers. Did you ever rotated natural numbers ? Nicolae-boicu (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Skeptic to alarmist?

I have seen some news stories on Google News that Richard A. Muller who it said had been a prominent scientific skeptic of global warming had converted to the alarmist position. Since I have not been following this as closely as you have, what is up with that? Does it matter? JRSpriggs (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping! JRSpriggs (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Muller originally questioned the methodology of the ground-based figures (possibly including data selection bias, or improper processing of data error estimates, and "correction" of ground-based data to match other estimates). He then ran the data "correctly" and got approximately the same results (a slightly smaller increases for the 1990s and 2000s). The fact that he was funded by a climate change denial organization may have led to the conclusion that he was a denier, rather than an honest skeptic.

If the Michigan Kid weren't vanadalizing the climate change section by including scandal-sheets, we might have properly included these facts in the respective articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but your recent edit to the user page of another user could give an editor the impression that you are forcing your own point. We would like to remind you that your edit appears disruptive, and such tactics could lead to a block. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If direct discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution. Thank you. Arcandam (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:POINT violation is yours. Ingrid's statement is no more notable than Nadia's (by any rational interpretation), or mine (by your interpretation that her opinion is notable because she has an article). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I strongly recommend that you stop before you are blocked again. Arcandam (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. I never said her opinion is notable because she has an article BTW. p.p.s. Nice parrots!

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Arcandam (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have 2 reverts on this article in the past week. You have 5 in the past 2 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point like you did is a blockable offense, even if you did it just once. Arcandam (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point. Only recently has anyone attempted to justify Ingrid's (unofficial) comment being in the article. And that argument (that the media has commented on Ingrid) also justifies Nadia's (unofficial) opinion being in the article, because the media has also commented on that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You wrote in your editsummary: "I may regret this, but something has to be done about the absurd reverts being done by Arcandam. There is little possible justification for Ingrid being here and Nadia not". If you honestly do not understand you can revert yourself and ask for an explanation here (I have your page watchlisted). If you continue with this kind of behaviour you will be blocked yet again. Arcandam (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Until less than an hour ago, there has not been any justification for Ingrid's opinion being in the article. Nadia's confused opinion also has media coverage; why not include whatever it was she actually said? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Typo

You made a typo in my name. Would you be so kind to correct it? You can find it here. My name is Arcandam, not Arkandam. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the anon, not me. No offense intended; I'd correct it if it were my mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Meth is a hell of a drug. Arcandam (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a stupid question but do you have a recall page? And are you "open to trouting", or do you consider trouts to be a personal attack? Arcandam (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not open to recall. After taking a complicated position clearly required by the rules, which seriously upset both sides in a dispute, I decided that I couldn't come up with a recall system which would allow recall if I seriously did something wrong, but wouldn't be activated if I just upset people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, most recall pages I've seen are rather bureaucratic. Some people do not appreciate being trouted, do you have a problem with it? Arcandam (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem with being trouted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Feel free to retrout me if you want to! Trouting is sexy. Arcandam (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Misplaced Pages is not an MMORPG, its more like a FPS. And on this server friendly fire is on. Look at my uniform. We are on the same team. Arcandam (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid and Nadia

As discussed at the article talk page, I am of the opinion that having both Ingrid and Nadia in the article is fine, as long as we also have Romney's response to PETA in the article as well (which we do). I removed the POV tag in that section a few days ago, when I inserted Romney's response to PETA. Frankly, I just don't see the problem. However, I look forward to discussing it with you at the article talk page. And I do think that your recent edits at that article are a lot more block-worthy than mine.  :-) Cheers.108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall when it was, but there had been consensus that none of the statements (falsely) attributed to animal welfare organizations were both important and relevant. (There actually was a third statement by another representative of MaSPCA.) It's possible that the consensus has changed, but I haven't seen any evidence of further discussion on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What statement by a PETA official do you think Romney was responding to?108.18.174.123 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also posed this question for you at the article talk page.108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seamus-gate

FYI, the cited source from Business Insider called it "Seamus-gate", but I'm glad to leave it out.166.147.120.24 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Progressive insight

Ok, I have a small problem, today's Arcandam today does not fully agree with yesterday's Arcandam. The longer I think about it the more likely it seems that you were not trying to make a point. On the other hand I still understand why it looked like making a point to me. So that's what you get, a half-assed apology: I apologize for underestimating you, but I think you are smart enough to figure out why it seemed that way to me, and we probably have to agree to disagree about some things. Removing my comments was not an option because you already replied so I struck through some of 'em. Arcandam (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a proposal based on 108.18.174.123's proposal near the bottom of this page. Arcandam (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Launched ANI against the Michigan IP

FYI I just started ANI proceeding against the IP in Michigan. Your comments in the proceeding are invited/requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

56 (number)

Your argument “Never heard of it” is ridiculous. Are you pretending to know everything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soufflenin (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If I never heard of it, it requires a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.Soufflenin (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorta looks like part commercial spam and part non-notable loosey goosey bunch of semirandom artists, who can't even maintain a snailmail address for their "HQ". But I don't really care, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notifying about declined speedy deletion

I have deprodded your SDR under A7 per Forensics (musician) as a couple of refs (ie Knowledge Magazine) sounds reliable (and A7 requires a lower standard than notability). Notability under GNG or WP:BAND is however still questionable, so feel free to proceed via AfD. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article appears to be an exact copy from the source http://last.fm/music/forensics , and thus plagiarism and possibly a copyright violation. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: Those sources don't support any evidence of notability, except that KMag interviewed him. Whatever.

As I wrote above, A7 =/= Notability. A7 " is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability" and "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source", the article in itself claims some significance ("pioneering the ‘111’ movement", "collaborating with other producers at a range of tempos", "ran Methodology Recordings" and so on) and also has a couple of reliable sources, if these claims are worth of notice is another question, I don't see how A7 could be applied here. Cavarrone (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't a "credible claim of significance" actually have to refer to something which might be significant, if accurate? I really don't see anything there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends from what the (cited and uncited) sources say in relation to these claims... pioneening a musical movement, ran a label, collaborating with other (possibly notable) producers could be a "credible claim of significance" (IMHO). And being object of multiple interviews from a reliable source could be considered a decent starter. At any rate, I'm far from saying that the subject is notable. Cavarrone (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@JBSpriggs: Seems too short to be a copyright violation. But I'm not a lawyer. Also, I hesitate to suggest a combined speedy deletion reason: What isn't a copyright violation doesn't suggest notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

mass hysteria and conspiracy theories

He Arthur, I saw your revert of my removal of categories at Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations. I removed it, because with the Amsterdam sex crimes case in the cat, I couldn't see those as a common denominator (no sources of that at least of mass hysteria (first time I read that article btw; weird things happening ;-)) or conspiracy theories and figured members of the cat would not have these "attributes" always. How do you think about that? Should Amsterdam sex crimes case be in there in your opinion? L.tak (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought the category was about child abuse at day care centers, not child abuse by day care workers, so Amsterdam sex crimes case wouldn't fit. Your removal of the {{catmain}} tag, although I didn't revert it, might be a significant change which justifies both inclusion of Amsterdam sex crimes case in the category and removal of the categories. I don't know. All I can say is that it's not necessary for all articles in category A to belong in category B for category A to belong in category B. It makes my reason for restoring the categories incorrect, but it doesn't seriously effect the argument that the category is about "conspiracy theories" and "mass hysteria". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, most of the abuse took place at the centers, so by that argument it would fit; but it seems that there is a difference between the general cat and the 80ies/90ies phenomenon that is hard to address (hence my removal of cat main). You are right however on the fact that not all cat-cats need to be suitable for every included article.... Tricky business. L.tak (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism...

Rather than reverting, I suggest you would have done better to just fill in the missing word. It should be pretty obvious what it was. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, it wasn't obvious, and it's not obvious that either statement is supported by either source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to revert your revert so that there is no appearance of edit-warring. I'm going to then insert a citation to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/nyregion/connecticut/10polct.html?_r=1, which talks about God, guns and gays as wedge issues, so as to avoid the synthesis.

As I tried to explain initially, it is much more productive to discuss and cooperatively edit than to constantly revert. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It's one word. If someone really thinks that restoring one word while adding two requested citations is edit-warring, they're welcome to try to track down an admin insane enough to block me for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you, but if L... does, I suspect an admin would be willing to block you, per Misplaced Pages policy. However, this time, I'll go to the trouble of verifying your sources, and determine whether you are combining two sources to support the sentence, neither of which supports the whole sentence. If you are, that's WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and report me if you think it'll stick. It might; admins vary in quality and carefulness. You could luck out like Lionelt did and find someone who won't even check your claim. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You obviously can't understand simple English sentences. I said I wasn't going to report you. Under the circumstances, now, if someone does report you on a board that I monitor, I probably will comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You obviously like to make things personal. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping vs. Votestacking

Hello Arthur. Thanks for your input on votestacking. I felt pretty strongly that there was something less than totally up-and-up about what was going on there, simply based on where Still-24 was shopping for new eyeballs. Given your detailed knowledge of policy, I would like to get your take on a recent, nearly identical incident involving the same user. While I suppose what is being done here might be within the letter of policy, I think the intent should be pretty obvious: he's not looking for neutrality. He's trying to sway consensus in a given direction. I think that's disruptive. Thoughts? Belchfire-TALK 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue was whether to keep some well-cited material about sexual abuse, so I went to Sexual abuse. I could also go up the hierarchy of scouting-related articles, but given the American focus of Misplaced Pages, I think Boy Scouts of America is about as high as it goes. If you have an alternate recommendation for a neutral, relevant and populated article to drop a notice on, feel free to share it. If you don't, then don't bother accusing me of anything. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That link (asking editors of Homosexuality to look at Focus on the Family) is clearly forum shopping, even though an almost neutral request. It's not technically "vote stacking", because the request is (almost) neutral. Any rational person would believe that anyone able to edit Homosexuality in keeping with the guidelines would be unlikely to be able to edit Focus on the Family in keeping with the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's odd: I'm a rational person yet I see no problems with the editors of Homosexuality also editing a section of Focus on the Family that concerns homosexuality. I don't understand your reasoning here. Anyhow, according to policy, what I did was fully acceptable and not forum-shopping in the least. I suggest you re-read WP:CANVAS. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I have to assume you're a rational person. But if you don't understand my reasoning, I may have to change my mind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You had an opportunity to explain your reasoning. Instead, you launched a personal attack. Again. Why do you keep doing this? You're apparently a mature adult and not stupid, so what's motivating you to keep insulting me when I'm trying very hard to remain civil and engage productively? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Belchfire-TALK 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've explained that WP:CANVAS allows this. I chose a single, relevant target that is relevant to the topic and left a neutral invitation. Feel free to go to WP:ANI or something so it can boomerang all over you. 21:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right; definitely forum shopping, and WP:BOOMERANG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think I did something wrong, feel free to report me. Otherwise, I'd appreciate if you kept your opinions to yourself. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Any guidance on the appropriate course of action? I see education as a logical first choice, but that seems to be off the table here. It would be helpful if we could end the pattern of disruption. Belchfire-TALK 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a WP:RFC/U? Even it were solely a content dispute (which it isn't), there's no good place for a content dispute over multiple articles. Remember, of course, that the conduct of all participants in an WP:RFC/U may be considered by Arbcom, if it comes to that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the matter is clear enough for WP:ANI or WP:AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that says a lot about the strength of your accusations, doesn't it? Perhaps you should take a hint from this and back off. This way, if you ever do find something to report me for, it won't boomerang against you when they notice your pattern of stalking me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

notability on 1982 births

Thank you for clarifying why my edits were reverted and understanding that I was editing in good faith. A couple questions:

1) Where are the guidelines for notability on the calendar year pages? My sense was that if they were sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia entry than they would have enough notability to be listed on this page. Where are the guidelines saying that common year pages are only meant for "sufficiently important" people? Or is this limited for aesthetic/readability issues or another reason I'm not thinking of?

2) Which one of the entries were not blue-linked? I re-checked them and (unless one of the pages was deleted in the interim) all of them still had their own pages. C5mjohn (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check WP:WikiProject Years and its talk page archives, but there is general consensus that birth/death entries on year pages require more than just having an article on that specific person. In "recent years" (since Misplaced Pages started), WP:RY provides more restrictions. There seems to be general consensus in regard people born on, say, July 5, 1982, would be that 1982 -> July 5 -> Births in 1982, but not the reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WARNING

In your revert, you made demonstrably false claims in the edit comment. In specific, you said "Actually, it was YOUR bold change." In reality, my edit was a revert of Belchfire's bold deletion. This deletion was the bold edit; the material deleted had accumulated over time from multiple editors, showing consensus.

You may not have noticed, since you reverted without bothering to talk about it, but there was discussion of Belchfire's bold deletion and those who participated were in agreement about it being a bad idea. In short, Belchfire boldly removed material against consensus, and you edit-warred to help him. This is not acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages.

This notice is a record of your mistake. If you repeat your error, I will include this notice when I go to ANI to have you censured. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Looking at the presence of "wedge" in the file, you introduced it on August 8 (UTC). It was reversed twice (by me), and you restored it twice. It was left in place for a few edits on August 8. Then, on August 11, Belchfire removed it, you restored it, and I removed it again. The incorrect (per wikt:wedge issues) use of "wedge issues" by the source is not my problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If Belchfire's revert had been of one word, you might have a point here. Unfortunately, he reverted the entire "After the fall of" sentence, which I can't claim authorship of. I did work on that sentence, cleaning up the English (as that's my native tongue and I can use it at a professional level) and adding citations.

Even if it was just about the word, you'd be mistaken about the correctness of its use. You cite wikt:wedge issues, but this is a red link. Besides, Wiktionary is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, is it? I cited a common dictionary (probably m-w), to show that I was using the word correctly. It's also very, very easy to find reliable sources which refer to some or all of these as "wedge issues" in precisely those words.

But you say it's not that word, either. I think you need to explain yourself -- not here, but on the article talk page -- so that we don't have to guess why you keep reverting. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was wikt:wedge issue, and the point was brought up by an editor which did not revert you. m-w.com reports "a political issue that divides a candidate's supporters or the members of a party"; in this case, the issue is used to distinguish the candidate's or party's position from that of the other parties'. Completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, wikt:wedge issue agrees with m-w.com, and both are consistent with article usage, as well as with the example I gave on the talk page. What's your issue here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you argue for the same text to be used in two different articles using different arguments makes it difficult to determine which or your arguments have been completely refuted. At least, unlike the Michigan Kid, you make arguments on the talk pages of the articles you want the text to appear in, rather than that of loosely related pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, and I seem to remember that I was the one who suggested that you response "not here, but on the article talk page". As for which ones are refuted, I can help: none. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, though, that the arguments for and against the connection between the Tea Party and social conservatism be placed in one article, with the exception of the additional argument that, even if it were an example of social conservatism, it wouldn't be a particularly good or important example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you pick a topic and stick to it. I could swear we were talking about the notion of conservative wedge issues, but now you're talking about the social conservatism of the Tea Party. The latter was brought up on Social conservatism but I reached out to Tea Party movement to get the attention of editors who might be knowledgeable on the subject. Since the question is whether the teabaggers should be mentioned on Social conservatism, that seems like the right place to discuss it. Once they are, the editors interested in the movement are free to update its page if they see fit. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Stalking

Please do not follow me around to harass me with false allegations. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm following "Still-<stable IP>" around because he has no idea what Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are. If he's following you, that's another matter. I'm not following you around, and I don't know what allegations you're talking about. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, you're following me around because you think it's fun to bait me. Cut it out or I'll report you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I'm following you around, in addition, because very few of your edits comply with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and none of your comments do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know why JournalScholar thinks I'm following him around. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't know why? Maybe because you followed me to the Paul Ryan talk page to harass me. Still-24-45-42-125 make sure to note this if you decide to report him. --JournalScholar (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I definitely followed Still to the page. He was blocked for edit-warring for removing sourced material, but you can be blocked for adding (multiple times) inappropriate sourced material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting as part of a pattern of stalking intended to intimidate editors. And, to remind you, I was blocked on the basis of a false 4RR report. But you knew that already, right? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly false. WP:3RR, in addition to stating that reverting WP:BLP violations is exempt (while it should say clear WP:BLP violations), doesn't specify exactly what "user" means in "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user". The first "user" is often used to mean a person who edits(regardless of IP or editor name changes), and using that same definition for the second "user" would exclude bot edits (but not, for the same reason, not necessarily edits attributed to a bot). Perhaps if you request clarification at WT:3RR, this can be resolved for future occurences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, this has gotten to be a bad habit with you. You were stalking and harassing me a few weeks ago as well. Your past behavior shows a history of taking things very personally and bullying people with whom you disagree. Perhaps you really don't have the temperament to be an effective Misplaced Pages administrator, and should consider spending your time doing something else. SimpsonDG (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Time formatting

Hi Arthur,

I did not understand ]. If there is an easy way I can add to your data using the same time formatting you use, I will be glad to get with the program. Educate me, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ach so! I just noticed your note at the top of the list saying you were using PST. If we are subtracting hours from UTC, it makes most sense to me to subtract five hours (for Michigan time, the IP's location.) But tracking via UTC reduces work and confusion on part of other editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry. I set my displays to local time, so I copy those times. If you prefer UTC, that's OK. I'm in PST2PDT (UTC -8 in "winter", UTC -7 in "summer"). It might be better to convert all the times to UTC, anyway, but I don't have a bot which will do that; nor are the entries in tables so I can paste them to a spreadsheet and do a bulk correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Either UTC or Michigan make the most sense to me. I don't care either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)