Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 24 June 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 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2013

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)

I've looked into this issue myself. Rubin, didn't you notice that each of your reverts here was creating an error message at the bottom of the page? Why were you carrying on an edit war without getting some background first? Even I noticed the error message. Incnis was right here, and you were wrong. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:37, 2 June 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)

Fixed, I hope. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 16:35, May 27, 2013‎

A barnstar for you!

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

Note from Arthur

Arthur's having problems with his ISP and wanted me to post his apologies for any editing errors he's made as a result. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I went down the list you gave me and the problems have been fixed. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are a number of URLs still damaged, but thank you, Malke, for trying. (As long is there isn't an actual http in the section, my text shouldn't be mangled.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have control again; after changing DNS servers and then flushing the DNS cache. Sorry about all the problems; I think all the errors have been reverted, and all the edits I intended to make have been made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Arthur. Sorry I didn't catch those URLs. I looked in on the pages and as soon as I saw someone had "reverted Arthur Rubin" I checked it off on the list. Should have been more thorough. Also, Arthur regarding this . Has the editor with the sock been blocked? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The specific sock (141.) was not blocked, as there is no sign it is semi-stable, and it had stopped editing long before I noticed it. It's obviously the same person, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Frungi (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 12 (number) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"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) 01:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I would have fixed it earlier, but something here on Misplaced Pages was throwing off blank pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tea Party protests 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) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Please keep an eye on that page. Jehochman 10:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Category question

Hi Arthur, when you've the time, I added a category to an article I created here and it got removed. The coronaviruses are single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses. Can I create a category for them? Or just add them to the RNA category? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Human coronavirus HKU1 is in

1. Category:Betacoronaviruses which is in:
2. Category:Coronaviridae which is in:
3. Category:Nidovirales which is in:
4. Category:RNA viruses

If all those categories are really inclusions, rather than related categories, or in category by names, WP:SUPERCAT suggests #4 is unnecessary in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I've been reflexively adding RNA virus. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Central limit theorem

Arthur, I was looking for vandalism and came across a change at this article. I don't understand the maths. Could you take a peak at the changes there? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP reverted just after I posted this. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of Influenza A virus subtype H3N8

Hi Arthur. You recently reverted my changes to Influenza A virus subtype H3N8. I'm a little confused by this. My changes were to provide a more specific wikilink to the 1889–1890 flu pandemic, and to include this virus subtype within the category for that particular pandemic. Can you explain why you feel this needed to be reverted? Generally, it's good practice to justify reversions that clearly aren't vandalism. Thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I intended only to revert your addition of the category, which (linking to a non-existent category) is clearly non-constructive. However, the article previously said it caused the 1889 pandemic or the 1900 epidemic. You changed it to being suspected of causing both. That seems a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that researchers have recently attributed the 1889–1890 pandemic to H3N8 although previously it was attributed to H2N2. I'm less sure about the 1900 epidemic—that's not really one of the major recorded influenza pandemics. Initially I removed 1900 as I assumed the wording "causing a human influenza pandemic in either 1889 or 1900" just reflected a contributor who was unsure of the date. I added 1900 back into the H3N8 article on the principle of an abundance of caution. I have found some passing references to H3N8 as the cause of an epidemic in 1898&ndash1900, so I'll add that to the article. As to the redlinked category, that's just because I'm having a little trouble getting the editing interface to create this category. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. That being said, the problem with linking the category may have to do with "-" (hyphen) vs. "–" (en dash), or possibly "—" (em dash). "en dash" is correct, although WP:DASH has been subject to much discussion. It looks as if you now have the category created properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I added another ref to clarify the level of confidence about attributing the 1889 and 1900 epidemics to H3N8. And I did get the category created at last. Thanks for prodding me to make this more accurate. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:92.26.245.185

Hi, This IP has been vandalizing a variety of articles for several days. Could you take a look if you have a moment? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

2061

I didn't create the 2061 year article, though tidied it up after it was created - but I don't see why you undid this work and decided it should not exist. Is there a policy on year articles? If so, it would be helpful to cite it when sweeping away other people's work. Thanks. PamD 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea is that 2061 shouldn't be created without creating all of the relevant years and farming out most of 2060s to respective year articles, it being coordinated, and the internals of some of the year infoboxes fixed. Unfortunately, I no longer know how to fix the infoboxes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

2061

Hi Arthur Rubin,

I am just asking why you changed 2061 back to a re-direct, there was more information in it than in 2059.

Thanks,

Matty.007 07:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw the same above. So are you suggesting that I work on the ten articles in my userspace, or elsewhere, and then release them at the same time?

Thanks, Matty.007 07:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How about if Matty adds {{Under construction}} to the 2060s page, and perhaps a note on its talk page to say what s/he's doing, and carries on where they started from with 2061? Seems better than the complexities of doing stuff in user space. PamD 08:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. I'll ping WT:YEARS to find out where the end links are coded, not that anyone reads that.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Which rule does my signature violate? Its not long at all. Template:IPAc-en/pronunciationTemplate:IPAc-en/pronunciationTemplate:IPAc-en/pronunciation/Template:H:IPATemplate:H:IPATemplate:H:IPATemplate:H:IPATemplate:H:IPATemplate:H:IPA/ 07:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Valleron, Alain-Jacques; Cori, Anne; Valtat, Sophie; Meurisse, Sofia; Carrat, Fabrice; Boëlle, Pierre-Yves (May 11, 2010). "Transmissibility and geographic spread of the 1889 influenza pandemic". PNAS. 107 (19): 8778–8781. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000886107. Retrieved January, 14 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. Sdstate.edu
3. Pilva.com
4. Alexis Madrigal (April 26, 2010). "1889 Pandemic Didn't Need Planes to Circle Globe in 4 Months". Wired Science. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)