Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 5 January 2014

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 2014 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!

You make a difference

	Hello Arthur Rubin, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Misplaced Pages! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

Thanks to the nth degree

I just noted in my watchlist your apparently exhaustive efforts to reign in the IP sock factory. I am, quite simply, in utter awe, Arthur. I don't know much approbation you get from Wikipedians, but I can state unequivocally that it simply is nowhere near enough. Tracking a creep over two years would make me lose all my faith in humanity, and yet, you still appear to be generous, articulate and detail-oriented. Thank you ever so much for helping to make Misplaced Pages a place where I can edit with a minimum of interaction with sock-puppets. You are a mensch, sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, I don't have any experience with Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse, do you? Would it be helpful to get our friend entered there? Ahoy Vsmith (talk · contribs) (and anyone else) - thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Astrodynamics and orbits

Hi, Arthur. I've noticed that you are a mathematician and aerospace engineer. Having these qualifications, I thought you could clarify some aspects concerning spiral trajectories of orbital bodies like satelites and the requested force laws that could allow spiral trajectories, aspects which are missing from articles like Cotes spirals which says these spirals are trajectories for moving in a inverse-cube central force. That article has some steps missing in the demonstration that could be clarified. Thanks for your answer--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IEEE technical societies

If you are a member of one or more of the IEEE technical societies, you may wish to identify yourself as such on Misplaced Pages. I’ve created Wikipedian categories for each of the 38 IEEE technical societies. The new Template:User IEEE member creates a userbox identifying the society and your membership grade and includes your user page in the relevant Wikipedian category. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note. Yours aye,  Buaidh  17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — IEEE Life Member

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas. Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Talkback

All the best. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Finished

I fell asleep. As long as we're on the topic, do you think that 22nd century should swallow all those tiny decade articles? Also, are you saying you want me to remove "Centuries in the future" and "years in the future" Serendious 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think the 22nd century should have had the decades in the first place, but, when I first started, 2100s (or 2100–2109, or 2100s (decade)) already existed; around 2010, someone created 2110s, on the grounds that years up to 100 years in the future should be incorporated in decades, and then someone else created 2120s–2190s to create a perceived pattern, even though some of them were empty of content. I'd be in favor of absorbing all of them into 22nd century (at least until 2050, when most of us will no longer be editing ).

As for categories; I don't recall the exact name, but there was a deleted category which was supposed to incorporate decades, centuries, and millennia in the future. I have no objection to combining all the future eras (year or long) into a single category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Sorry to hear about your block Arthur. I read it and I utterly don't agree with it but then I have vocally opposed the abusive nature of AE, Sandstein and the broadly construed language frequently used. I think this action typical of Sandstein and his attitude to block anyone submitted to AE and the communities utter lack of control of him or the AE process. Just one of the multiple reasons I have largely stopped editing WP. Personally to me it reeks of a not so subtle attempt to torpedo your Arbcom run. Anyway, enjoy the week off. If you get bored we always need good editors over at Wikia. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I find your conspiracy theory less than credible, Kumioko. There was enough pre-knowledge indicated here that it was known that this was at the very least skirting the edge of his topic ban. If there's doubt, then bring it up with an arbitrator informally (or even formally as a clarification request) before doing it. If Arthur wants to appeal it, Sandstein has placed a link on how to appeal it in the block notice, however I doubt that there would be a successful appeal. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully know how to do an appeal but I don't have any faith in the appeals process or in Sandstein. Which is likely why Arthur or anyone else hasn't bothered. It would take more than a week to fight it (and you and Sandstein know this) so its better just to wait it out. He almost never overturns his rulings and even then only under intense community pressure. I am also way beyond caring if people believe my "conspiracy theories". Also if Arthur was skirting the edge then that means we should Assume good faith not abandon all faith and block them just in case. If you bother to look into the case of this AE block you will see that most people thought the argument for a block was weak. Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew that there was a claim that the article was covered by the topic ban, although the section clearly wasn't additionally covered by the topic ban. I also don't see a "conspiracy". For what it's worth, I was in the process of withdrawing the comment while the AE complaint was made, but there is no way to prove that, and .... I'm not going to say any more. I was starting to agree with Kumioko, and we all know that, even if accurate, that would not be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes agreeing with me is certainly not a good wikicareer move. :-) I'm not (or will I ever be) an admin on this site and everyone knows regular editors can't be trusted. One of the many reasons I'm barely editing here anymore. I'm just glad the Wikia project's have more faith in their editors. That way as Misplaced Pages dies, we can fork off the content and continue to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Welcome back. Kumioko (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I can understand how you might feel that regular editors don't get a lot of respect, but I think everyone knows that Misplaced Pages depends upon all of our contributions. While Misplaced Pages is losing editors, I can't imagine that a fork will somehow succeed where Misplaced Pages is failing, precisely because it would be just as dependent upon free labor. Do you know something I don't? MilesMoney (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal

Hello. I've become increasingly concerned about edits that MorningGlory3 is making to The Courage to Heal, which seem to be having the effect of portraying the book in an overly-favorable way. If you could review what has happened at the article recently and express a view of it, that would be helpful. I'm asking you as you have edited the article in the past. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: I'm blocked at the moment. My recollection is that I agree with you about MorningGlory3, but I'll check back on 21 December. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that you were blocked after posting here; if you can take a look at the article when the block expires, that would be most appreciated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory. Thank you.

Notifying you just because your name was mentioned beside a diff. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm blocked at the moment; I had thought that Brian Josephson was a POV editor; I hadn't realized he was also one of the principals mentioned in the article, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that. Sorry about the block. If you want me to post anything to ANI on your behalf, let me know. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Arthur, FYI I addressed a thread to you and VSmith at the other's talk page here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, they aren't random IPs; they are previous incarnations, including, occasionally, some that hadn't been previously detected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Error detected section

If anyone monitors this, please feel free to comment on fixes. Otherwise, I'll get back to it when my block expires. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, please be aware that directing other editors to make edits on your behalf during a block is a violation of WP:EVADE. What you have here is more indirectly "suggesting" rather than "directing," but it looks to me like you're skating a little close to the edge. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it. Are you saying it's inappropriate to take notes as to edits I intend to make later? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it, either. Had Arthur pinged me at my page, then I would agree with Simpson. However, this looks to me like Arthur's own "to do when I'm back" list. The only way this is a major no-no is if WP:EVADE trumps WP:AGF. An assumption of good faith compels us to read the opening words "If anyone monitors this...Otherwise, I'll get back to it..." as honestly meaning just what it appears to be: a very generalized invitation for anyone to look into any of the items posted here. I watch Arthur's page out of a common interest in combatting external link spam from a Michigan IP. (See here and here). Is there some reason I can not, on my own initiative, look into and decide to "own" any of these items? I would have done what I checked off below had I stumbled across it on my own. It is my edit, not Arthur's, and I was not recruited as a hired gun.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. One of the things that got Arthur blocked in the first place was that he tried to evade his topic ban by asking another user to edit for him. Now that he's blocked, he's treating the whole thing as a joke by once again recruiting others to edit for him. The excuse about planning future edits is a transparent lie; I'm sure he knows how to keep a text file open on his own computer. MilesMoney (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I were to gather your offenses and/or evidence that you are a topic-banned editor, that should be done as a text file until there is sufficient evidence for an RFC/U or an SPI. Why should I not report vandalism as I see it? As for text files on my computer, when I was using IE to edit, it frequently crashed, losing information in the text files (but not the list of tabs I had open in IE, for some reason.) Now that I'm using Firefox, it's not crashing, so I could use text files, but why, when it is perfectly reasonable to store the information on Misplaced Pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IE means Windows. Windows comes with Notepad. You could just use Notepad. Even if it crashes (and it doesn't), you could save after every change. There is absolutely no reason for you to keep this list on Misplaced Pages.

You know why you can't put up a list of desired changes and wait for others to make them: it's directly against WP:EVADE, which is what you violated to get yourself blocked in the first place. Anyhow, save your unconvincing explanations for WP:ANI, and save your thinly-veiled threats for someone who can be intimidated. MilesMoney (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, you don't normally ask other editors to "comment" on your changes, do you? Also, you should note that the "comments" people are leaving on your suggested changes are simply acknowledgements that they've made the changes you've suggested. According to WP:EVADE, other editors are not supposed to be making edits on your behalf unless they can show "independent reasons for making such edits." It seems to me you're coming awfully close to violating WP:EVADE. You could save yourself the appearance of a violation by simply keeping these notes locally on your own computer, rather than posting them here. SimpsonDG (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I think this was a bad idea. Talk page access is primarily to allow block appeal. It is also permitted for other edits, the normal type of things one adds to talk pages, but effectively requesting proxy edits, with the thin veneer of a to-do list, is over the line IMO.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I stop short of endorsing Sphilbrick's "thin veneer" characterization, I also think that when we are lucky/smart/awake/honest enough to realize, beforehand, that an act could be used by another as the basis for the other person's claim of wrongdoing, then the simple goal of drama-avoidance is usually a sufficient reason to refrain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, if I may make a suggestion: if you really want to store your future edits here, why not just post a notice here asking other editors that they not make these changes themselves? I think that would satisfy everyone that you're not trying to violate WP:EVADE. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with a "do not touch" list such as this is: First, there are people like me who evaluate proposed edits based on merit, and arriving at an "independent" conclusion that the project would benefit from a proposed edit will ignore such a request. Second, I might come by the article and make the edit without even knowing the edit was on AR's "please don't touch" list. So that's a bad idea.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As a clarification, I am not asking other editors to make these changes. As noted below in Other errors#3, I really am asking for comments, not for others to make these changes. (And the error in Other errors#2 is too complicated for someone not familiar with article to fix it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm the editor who began making these changes and using the ESp template. Arthur didn't ask me to. In each case, I evaluated the change and decided if it was something I felt comfortable handling myself. In two cases, it was not, and I passed it over. I'm the primary actor here, not Arthur, so discussion should not be focused on him. Most of these are obvious errors, test edits or even vandalism, and it's clear they should be fixed. This conversation verges on the suggestion that obvious errors and vandalism shouldn't be corrected if they are suggested in the wrong venue. If IAR ever had an application, it would be to oppose that suggestion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Amen, and I am also the actor here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading Proxying (which language also appears in WP:EVADE), I realize I had thought the proscription was stronger. I no longer believe that the creation of a to-do list is in violation of even the spirit of the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO Jess its not you that did anything wrong nor did Arthur but there are people in this project who are looking for a reason to block him. WP:EVADE doesn't even cover this situation but a couple of editors are attempting to interpret that it does. In fact it says specifically that the changes need not be automatically reverted if they are beneficial to the project and "the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" which you did. So although Arthur may have posted that some of these needed to be done, he was neither directing any editor do it nor doing anything innapropriate. This whole situation is just a classic case of one editor trying to make beneficial changes and some others that don't like them trying to get them into trouble. We should be more worried about making improvements to the project than tattling on editors who are trying to do them. If the edits are beneficial they should be done period. Not this well you can't do them because there is an overarching, overreaching broadly construed ban on this topic that makes it so no one can make a change to that topic at all. Its absolutely ridiculous and this kind of stupid infighting is the sort of thing that makes people not want to edit Misplaced Pages. So you Jess and Arthur have nothing to be ashamed of or sorry for. The other miscreants talking here and leaving notes on Sandstein's talk page tattling need to think more for the project and less about trying to get another high output and knowledgable contributor banned form the project. We have too much of that shit already and it needs to stop. Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

When you have rules, they need to be enforced, for everyone, or else you have corruption. Making the argument that "if the edits are beneficial they should be done period" implies that it's OK to ignore a block or possible block evasion, as long as the edits are useful. No, it's not OK. Rules need to be enforced, or they're meaningless. And for the record, with his clarifying statement, I'm satisfied that Rubin is not trying to evade the current block that's in place. SimpsonDG (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify I tend to agree with what you are saying that we need to employ the rules evenly and judging by the statement on your userpage I would say we largely agree with the state of things in the project. But this is not just a cut and dried case (as many are not) where he was blatantly editing in violation of a sanction. This is at best one of those skirting the edge of the sanction sort of cases. I admit freely that I am in the camp that we should look at the value of the edit being done more than at the editor or the sanction. If the edit added value or removed vandalism then it should be left, if the edit contributes to a pattern of abuse or incmpetence, which these did not, then the sanction should be followed. I know I am in the minority in that belief but that is how I feel. Because that is what is in the best interest of the project. I do not live in a black and white world and I do not believe that these sanctions need to be black and white or all encompassing. I also do not beleive in the "broadly constued" language that is abusively used throughout sanctions and the project. Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=7_%28number%29&diff=prev&oldid=586561003

   Change of prime=4th to prime=5th on 7 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Already done by someone else.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Corruption_Perceptions_Index&diff=586612190&oldid=585577406

   Addition of India (in the front of otherwise alphabetical lists) in Corruption Perceptions Index, and a second anon changing INDIA to India — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_status_of_Taiwan&diff=586486692&oldid=584656749

   Access date set before issue date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:73_%28number%29&diff=next&oldid=488294496

   At least per WP:NOTHERE, but I don't see _anything_ there. It's an old edit, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   The full diff is here. His comments aren't great, but they're on topic at least. Since it's an ip, it's probably stale anyway. Probably best to leave it unless it stirs up problems later.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Done Got the wrong ip before. Removed the comments. Ip is probably stale.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=101_%28term%29&diff=586769863&oldid=564105316

   I don't even know why that's on my watchlist, but the anon change is, at best, a mistaken summary of the previous sentence. I'll look into this in more detail later even if someone reverts the anon change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Other errors

1. In 2013, John Cornforth's death is listed as 14 December. In his article, it's listed as 8 December, and it's sourced there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2. In Ring (mathematics), the term change of rings is both redlinked and meaningless; it should just be removed or changed to localisation, depending on exactly how the sentence is written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Millennium&diff=586600081&oldid=585202228

   In Millennium, incomplete change of a remark set off by parentheses to one set off by commas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Not done: This change looks right to me. The paren removed doesn't seem to have a matching end paren (unless I missed it).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

   Sorry. Neither version looks great, but I suppose this can wait. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

4. In Bell's theorem, 1930's should be replaced by 1930s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Done   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Internal_Revenue_Service&diff=586405366&oldid=567119876

   In Talk:Internal Revenue Service, looks like a legal threat. (Need to check for other references to that patent for cleanup; haven't found any, yet, but perhaps in Misplaced Pages search) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I told you I would no longer defend your actions, but if you had taken SimpsonDG's hint and given up on the proxy editing, I would have turned the other way. As it stands, I've reported you to WP:ANI. Below is your formal notification template:

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said (elsewhere on my talk page), I will not report MilesMoney's violations at this time, because that would be in violation of my block. However, his transparent attempt to have me banned cannot be considered in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention: I did not ask to have you banned. I asked for the timer on your block to be restarted because you evaded it and for your talk page access to be removed because you used it to evade the block. I explicitly said I do not want you indeffed. The fact that you keep threatening me and violating WP:AGF does not reflect well on you, and it does not undo your block evasion, regardless. My advice is for you to wait out another week without further evading the block (as by sending email to your proxies), and then carry on as normal. This is what would make your life easiest, but it's your life and your choice, but also your consequences. Think it through. MilesMoney (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the ANI thread's full pinpoint link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubin, in defending you, Johnuniq conceded:

Regarding the talk page: it's owner should just wait out the block and keep personal notes off-wiki, and while onlookers are welcome to act on such benign points, acknowledging them on the talk page is sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block—it would be best to skip that.

If you ignore the spelling/grammar error, I think you'll find another polite suggestion that you should stop evading the block. MilesMoney (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Something more interesting than WP:THIS and WP:THAT...

..., namely the axiom of choice!

Do you recall that I had a proposal for an article on the equivalence of the existence of group structure on all nonempty sets and AC a year or so ago?

I didn't know what to do with it, toss it or do something else. So, somewhat against your advice, I submitted it to "Articles for Creation". To my surprise it was accepted within a couple of hours, so here it is. There are a couple of issues with references. I posted a question over at Carl since you were on "vacation". Could you have a look? Best regards, YohanN7 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the first Cohen model (M) for the axiom of choice might work, but I don't if I can find a reference for the (stronger) statement that there is no partition of the set into finite sets of cardinality greater than 1. (You are more likely to find that in the literature than what you had originally, I would think.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears as the first (same as standard?) Cohen model does the trick. Could you check out this link, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/12973/does-every-non-empty-set-admit-a-group-structure-in-zf/12988#12988, and say if I'm on the right track? There is a reply post with 17 votes that is fairly detailed. I appreciate your help! YohanN7 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That proof looks good. However, I don't really see the example as helpful in Misplaced Pages. The proof shows that if X is an infinite Dedekind-finite set, then X ∪ ω does not admit a (cancellative quasi-)group structure. That seems a simpler example, in the sense of requiring less work to confirm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

@YohanN7:. More interesting, in a sense, is that if there is an infinite Dedekind-finite set, there is another one which does admit a group structure. If X is Dedekind-finite, then E(X) (the set of all finite subsets of X) is also Dedekind-finite, and admits the operation of symmetric difference as a group operation. (I think this is sufficiently non-controverial, and I am an expert, that you might use this diff as reference.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I already use the symmetric difference to show that AC -> group structure in the article. What is lacking in the article is a model of ZF with sets that admit no group structure, or rather a reference where the reader can find such a model. I apologize if I was unclear about this. YohanN7 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Given any non-well-orderable set X, the proof (that ~AC implies there exists a set without a group structure) gives a specific set on which no group structure can exist, namely X ∪ ℵ(X). (Actually, the proof doesn't construct that set, but it produces a set with the same cardinality.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Testing the boundaries of the TPm topic ban.

This edit affects an article that is included in the Tea Party movement discretionary sanctions. It reverts a minor change that is not vandalism. As such, it is a violation of the topic ban that got him blocked for the previous week.

Now, I'm sure a few dozen "neutral" editors will jump in to find some reading of policy that allows this, or invoke WP:IAR like last time by claiming no real harm was done and Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy so its rules don't apply to admins they like. In this climate of unequal treatment, I'm sure that an ANI report will simply be closed despite its merit.

The point remains that Rubin is testing the walls of his prison cell, which is becoming a pattern. He's trying to see how far he can go and still get away with it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Arthur Rubin, and I hope that it is OK for me to comment here. MilesMoney, I think that it is nice and respectful, when you bring an issue to an editor's own talk page, that you speak to them in the first second person, such as "Hello Arthur Rubin, I have a concern about you wikilinking the New York Times in that Koch brothers article, because of your topic ban. Please be careful." Speaking of someone in the third person on their own talk page, while analogizing a topic ban to a prison cell, doesn't seem collaborative to me. So, I suggest a different approach going forward. A more polite approach. Please consider it. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I used to address him by name, but I've stopped because he generally doesn't respond. Since I don't really expect him to answer anymore, I'd feel silly talking directly to him. Instead, when I find myself obligated to leave a comment about his behavior on his talk page, I just say it aloud to whoever might be listening.

The deeper problem here is that he keeps violating (or almost-just-barely-not-quite violating) serious policies. His refusal to respond to me is, in the big picture, a small thing. My subsequent impersonal mode of address is an even smaller one. MilesMoney (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. As usual. I requested clarification that I was allowed to revert the "Michigan Kid", even if in an article about the TPm. See User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2013#Arbitration amendment request closed (

(edit conflict)Alternately, he's an administrator, dealing with a long term abuse issue and the revert was completely inert and harmless with regards to the tea party topic. Perhaps you should retract this particular one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

George, I'd like to comment on two things. First, I'm sure you'll notice that Arthur Rubin didn't choose to address me by name, as you've suggested is polite. Second, I said in my original post that something would turn up that would excuse him, and this is precisely what happened. I'm not sure how I can retract an accurate prediction. Things ended as expected, so let's not beat this dead horse any longer. MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a better idea...since MilesMoney appears to have it in for Arthur and his ongoing comments here and at various noticeboards sure look like harassment, as an admin maybe you could impose an interaction ban. MilesMoney already gave us his opinion of Misplaced Pages with his comment at the bottom of his talkpage anyway. Miles routinely bans others from his page, so no reason to let this trolling continue here at least.--MONGO 12:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mongo, Mongo, Mongo. What am I going to do with you? You know there's only one editor banned from my talk page (and it's an abusive sock who's in SPI right now). Why can't we all just get along? MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you reverted MY original edits, so don't try this wikilawyering of trying to blame it on some Michigan Kid or whatever. You've been reverting enough of my similar edits to other articles that you clearly were aware of what you were doing. Misplaced Pages is not the place for your hyper-partisan "editing" aka whitewashing. I suggest you try Conservapedia if you're so allergic to facts. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The ones I reverted (except one, for which I apologize) appeared to be proxies for the Michigan Kid. The last one was on the page of a Democratic representative. How that could be related to the TPm is beyond me, and would probably be beyond anyone on WP:AE. I suggest you read WP:EL (and, specifically, WP:ELNO); you must justify each external link you add, whether or not through a template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on Ellison's Talk page, CongLinks is a template of long standing, and it is absurd to demand I justify every link, every time, for every US Senator, Rep and candidate, former and current. You've been here long enough to know that, yet you persist in your wikilawyering in your quixotic attemot to conceal information in the public interest such as financial contributions and all statements made by the person on C-SPAN. All you have provided in 'rebuttal' are your twisted interpretations of WP:ELNO. Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a place to allow people such as yourself to spin and cherrypick facts. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Absurd though it may be, each and every external link must be justified, per WP:ELBURDEN which says: "Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article." Also, the WP:EL guideline says "Each link should be considered on its merits", and "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter." We cannot shoehorn multiple links into an article by way of template convenience. External links should remain individual entries. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean Binksternet and Arthur Rubin are the same person? Now that I think about it, there are indeed marked similarities in your posts. Isn't it against Misplaced Pages guidelines to pretend to be two people? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Have fun with that premise. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Institute for Justice Talk page

Hey - I'm still learning about Misplaced Pages, and I hope you can help me with something. I see that you removed dates on section headings for the Institute for Justice talk page. I recently edited the page, adding about 50 references, changing the tone to reflect NPV, adding information, etc. The new article is probably 95% new material. The first several topics on the talk page refer to the older version of the article. Is it possible to archive those topics? Would it be a good idea to do so? Or is it best practice to leave the older topics in place? Thanks! James Cage (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@James Cage: I assume the previous dated section headers were from automated (or Twinkle) messages which post the current month. There is no need for both a month and a topic.

I've never seen an article talk page archived by topic; some Misplaced Pages talk pages are, though. I see no need to archive, although you might insert a note on the talk page that the article was significantly rewritten as of a certain date. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought. It may be that it's okay as is. Thanks again. If you see any issues with the article itself, or any general suggestions, please let me know. Best - James Cage (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

All the best. —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Ok, I just try it Franz Scheerer (Olbers) (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)