Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:23, 30 May 2013

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 2013 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:19, January 29, 2013‎ 15:19, 29 January 2013

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork 08:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Venn diagrams

What other logical relations?

These don't apply to a declaration of "all logical relationships", when talking about Venn Diagrams.

http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsALogicalRelation.htm

"A logical relation is an interpropositional relation in which a proposition is related to another, in reasoning, as

   a premise to a conclusion, or
   an antecedent to a consequent."

There are very many different types of logical relationships, and an unqualified "all" is incorrect. That's why I specified set membership,as that is the only logical relationship that is displayed by a Venn diagram

Thank you. Madsci_guy Madsci guy (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That is even less coherent than your previous comment, even though quoting a "glossary". And I ask you to name a "logical relation" which is not related to what you call "set membership", we'll see modifications need to be made in the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

B. L. S. Prakasa Rao‎

Please take a look on the new article I created. He was supervised by your father. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Brickstarter

Hey, I don't feel super strongly about which stub tag we use for that article, but I think it's always better to pick one and not clutter a tiny stub. Thoughts? Steven Walling • talk 00:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It looked to me as if you removed all the stub tags. It seems I was mistaken. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Have a nice day, Steven Walling • talk 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Re: Zeitgeist: The Movie Thank you for pointing out lead sentences should reflect the content of the article. It makes sense. Nevertheless, I am removing "conspiracy-theory based ideas" from the lead sentence because it's a buzzword with negative connotations, and although some of the article content relies on the spurious opinions of the peanut gallery (whom are apt indeed to slam alternative perspectives as "conspiracy theories"), I am wont to provide an introduction that doesn't reflect those opinions.

So, I hope your reasoning is a little bit stronger than it appears at its face: it is true, introductions should reflect the article's content, but Misplaced Pages articles are not exercises in academic writing. I am willing to go out on a limb and purport most visitors (taking neither you nor I as representative) read only the introduction. In psychology, we know that readers are influenced by what they read first and last (primacy and recency, or something to that effect). Extending this reasoning further, it seems unfair to use semantically-loaded phrases early (or at all) within an introduction; in fact, it looks outstandingly non-encyclopedic. It also disadvantages the entire subject (The Zeitgeist Movie), if we assume most visitors read the introduction only, and that these visitors are sensitive to the meanings and insinuations of "conspiracy theory."

There is plenty of chance within the article to describe what critics and skeptics have said. The makers of the film would not want their film characterised by the prevailing viewpoint of armchair critics, even though those opinions are bound to appear somewhere in the article. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is conspiracy-based, and that is the consensus of all reliable sources (excluding the filmakers themselves). That seems to me, and those sources I've read, to be the thread which runs through the three, independent, conspiracies proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for issuing me a warning, and for sparing the other party, as though I was involved in an edit war with myself. Your actions as an administrator appear to be influenced by whose point of view you support. Why invoke some policy or another when you are clearly not disinterested? I suppose it is but one of the perks of being an administrator: being accountable to no-one. On the issue of reliable sources, it occurs to me you're more inclined to send me to policy pages than elucidate, in your terms, what a reliable source actually is in this case. Given that we are talking about a film, not the atomic masses of particles or the area of Arizona, it seems to me this translates into some vague kind of acceptance that newspaper articles (in other words, opinions) can be cited as sources of truth. The first problem with this approach is, opinions are like anuses: everybody has one. The second problem is that opinions have their place, that place being anywhere BUT the topical sentences of the article, which is where the facts should be. The film's content might be related to matters which are subject to a great many conspiracy theories, it might even have attracted critics who (wrongly) suggest the film advances conspiracy theories, but that doesn't qualify the film for being mentioned in the same introductory sentence as that term.

Have you done everything in your power to be impartial? I doubt it. Xabian40409 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to take any adminstrative action in regard you or the article, but the facts, as reported in reliable sources, and in the body of the article, is that the movie is conspiricist. If you can find sources, not themselves conspiricist, which say otherwise, you can make (or better yet, propose) changes to the body, and then to the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We (as Wikipedians) don't care what the makers of the film would want, we care what reliable sources say about the film. The makers' comments are allowable to some extent, per WP:SELFPUB, but they have to not be unduly self-serving. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops - my mistakee

Thank you for reverting my unfortunate typo "th eory". However, I meant the other edit. Thierry Le Provost (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Wikinic

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the third Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there! —howcheng {chat} 18:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Meetup/LA/Invite.

τ

The consensus for τ is keep —— ¡not delete!

76.103.108.158 (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The consensus was merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. Tkuvho (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Hello, I'm 174.56.57.138. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Linden, New South Wales because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

6 (number)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at 6 (number). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Since you refuse to use the talk page, see this thread. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Linden, New South Wales

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Linden, New South Wales, you may be blocked from editing. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Early May 19 conduct

Hello. In last few hours I made following alarming observations:

1. Your use of WP:Rollback feature in edit warring, without even an attempt to explain it at its talk page
2. Your posting contained words contrary to the specified format at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Number at WP: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Arthur Rubin, although you had about two hours to fix the own red-link mistake
3. Your unsigned posting

A user who edits Misplaced Pages in such way inflicts more damage than merit. If nowadays you are unwilling to spend an appropriate amount of your attention to Misplaced Pages, especially to edits involving extended privileges, then I advice you to take a wikibreak or restrict your activity to uncontroversial edits only. If you opted to continue the current course, then I will certainly support stripping your privileges on the first occasion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't know you and I apologize for interjecting on your talk page, but I just had a similar, recent dealing with Incnis, who I'd never crossed paths with before; in fact, I'd never even seen his name. Anyway, this warning is outrageous and uncivil, similar to this one that Incnis posted on my talk page. Warning Arthur for a typo and forgetting to sign his post? And then telling him to take a wikibreak and threatening him? Seriously? Shall we discuss your mistypes or poor English, Incnis, such as "to fix the own red-link mistake" and "I advice you"? As I pointed out on my talk page, Incnis' history shows an ongoing pattern of being rude and otherwise inappropriate with numerous editors. And it really needs to stop. So, Incnis, I'd encourage you to focus on improving your own shortcomings instead of continually going out of your way to initiate problems with other editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

I may have been in error on Linden, New South Wales, although the IP still hasn't given a reason for his removal of the coordinates template, either on the talk page, in an edit summary, or on his or my talk page.

As for the numbers, the IP has not given an accurate reason for making the changes in the first place, nor has he made an accurate reason for the change in the dozen or so talk pages he has commented on, of the 35+ pages he's edited. (He claimed to be setting a consistent appearance for primes, but he changed a majority of the relevant pages.) Your complaint that I didn't fix the WikiProject location error in 2 hours has some justification, but I had to take care of my wife, and I didn't see the edit conflict report (apparently, without an actual edit conflict) until I got back. I suggested previously he get consensus in a central location before making the changes, but he hasn't yet done so. I finally brought the matter up today; I suggest that the status quo be retained until a consensus can be determined.

Sometimes I fail to make a signature; if I'm actively editing at the time, I often get back to it before the autosigner does.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

About your removal of my addition to Koch's page

Hi Arthur,

I'm not familiar with Misplaced Pages pages editing but I thought Helge von Koch was missing here. I now can see he is listed in the "Koch (surname)" page. I guess here are only some of the most famous Koch. Am I right? Or can you tell me why some are here and not others?

Regards, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.74.122 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was reasonable, but I reverted it in order to revert the previous edit, which removed Helge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: Mathematics & statistics topics

Greetings, Arthur. I hope you're doing well. I recently got involved in updating the Vital Articles lists project. The Vital Articles/Expanded list is supposed to have a limit of 10,000 articles, but it is currently 300+ topics over that limit because of ad hoc additions since the list was originally compiled four or five years ago. Accordingly, one of the first priorities of the update is to remove 300+ lower-priority topics from the VA/E list. I have a pretty strong background in economics, politics, history, literature, pop culture, sports, arts, etc., and I consider myself a well-read generalist. However, notwithstanding my two years in a graduate economics program prior to law school, my educational background is really insufficient to be making priority keep/remove decisions on mathematics-related topics. I remembered your academic background, and thought I might invite you to be our resident expert for purposes of reviewing those VA/E sublists that are math-related. Do you have time to review the list and let us know which lower-priority should be removed? Also, do you know several hard science guys on Misplaced Pages who could review the chemistry and physics-related topics for us?

Here are links to the VA/E main page and the VA/E Mathematics sublist.

I hope you can help -- please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movement

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Misplaced Pages, to resolve a problem.

• so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page ... I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
• I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Malke could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
• This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I am placing the same message on Malke's page. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated. The problem is that Xeno has violated the guidelines we agreed to on the moderated talk page, by construing comments about specific edits as personal attacks, and by lying about what I said. If SilkTork isn't willing to redact Xeno's comments, then we're back where we started without a "moderated" talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is complicated in that regard, but the situation isn't going to get any better if we do nothing. If Phoenix and Winslow will open the RfC/U, I will certify it. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: Please certify it and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Water conflict

It looks like I made a mistake by thinking I had made a mistake (undoing my revert)! I did not know that there was a sockpuppet at work here. (I did check at least one or two links and they appeared to lead to actual articles.) In any event, I am glad you became aware of this and were able to straighten it out. Donner60 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. Comments such as "that no one with a basic knowledge of English could unintentionally misinterpret the statement, so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page", are unhelpful and provoke negative responses.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page.

I note, on looking over your contributions to the discussion page, that you comment more on the contributors than you do on the content. Though I want as many people as possible to get involved in the discussion, I would rather people stayed away if their only or main contributions are to be personal comments which undermine the process. SilkTork 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandal IP

You think those were "good faith edits"..? Can't say I agree. Anyway, I guess the IP has exhausted AGF with this and this. Note the edit summaries.. lol. I think this is a user with an account. Therefore I have blocked the IP for 48 hours (it's static) with the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box ticked, too. I hope that doesn't cause collateral damage. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Administrators' noticeboard discussion on WP:RFC/U on user:Xenophrenic

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. THe Link is here.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for deletion of all the https Frze (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)