Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 18 December 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!

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!

Judaean vs Jewish

Judaean preserves more value of antiquity and is more contextually accurate Jewish is a modern ethnic why do you disagree with these valid facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

They are independent concepts. As far as I can tell, "Jewish" is what is supported by the sources. "Judaean" (probably misspelled) is not the same thing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

they are not the same thing I have already gone over that the Romans called the land of Canaan as Judaea and called its inhabitants Judaeans and they later annexed Judaea Lebanon and Syria into one big province called Syria Palaestina where the name Palestine comes from please revert it back I will keep trying to revert it as it is more accurate Editguy111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See Ioudaios for context on this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: pp-semi

Your question doesn't say why I should do it. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reason to "rollback all" my edits related to it. There are several pages that still protected. I'm not a bot, I can make mistakes. If I added a tag to a non-protected page, it can be removed, but there's no real reason to do it if the pages still protected. Also, if my edits included "removal of vandalism" (if any), why it should be reverted? Tools are certainly not used for those purposes. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't know you found talkback's annoying; I assumed you were just removing them because you had seen them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Arthur, I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie is trying to delete large portions of the article. I have commented on the talk page and left warnings on their talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A newbie obviously created the original article in the first place. I am going to replace it - completely. The Plasma Cosmology page should be about Plasma Cosmology. The current article is little more than the culmination of topic hijacking. It reads more like an article about the triumph of the Big Bang Theory than an article about Plasma Cosmology. It will be replaced - period. I hope you will approve of my changes. I plan to remove every reference to other models and focus solely on Plasma Cosmology. If you have no interest in the topic, then keep your hands off. Critics are not authorities. Advocates are not authorities. I will present a neutral article that deals solely with Plasma Cosmology. Furthermore BullRangifer, your strong insult will not be tolerated. talk 21:43, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Coming from a newbie, that's pretty strong language which reveals a lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. I've been patient with you. I could have already had you blocked for edit warring. Your attitude is what we call "I didn't hear that," in other words you are not learning from much more experienced editors, even though they have left you warnings, advice, and links to more information. We don't completely rewrite articles here. You don't own the article. It belongs to all editors, and you should show some respect for those who have put time into its creation.

We do want article improvement, so small increments are good for a start, considering you're a newbie. Right now you seem to have no sense of the situation. To illustrate, it's like you're wading into someone else's living room and demanding that they operate their home according to the rules which you use at your home. You're demanding they throw out all their pictures and rearrange their furniture because you don't like it, but you don't know WHY they have arranged their home the way it is. Maybe there is a reason. After all, the rules for interior decorating in their home (Misplaced Pages) are FAR different from the rules in your home (your website or blog). The rules are totally different here, and if you don't learn them and listen to what we're telling you, you will end up getting blocked. It's that simple. We are very long suffering with newbies, but when they don't listen and learn, we simply get rid of them. Now show a bit of humility and start asking questions instead of making demands.

Let me introduce you to whom you're dealing with right now: Arthur a very distinguished mathematician in real life and is an administrator here (sysop, 89588 edits since: 2005-08-15). I am a Physical Therapist (with a Physician Assistant education besides that) and an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18). We are both experienced enough to help you, if you'll allow it. Since you will never be allowed to edit alone here, without other editors having a right to watch your every move, comment on your talk page (you do not own it), and revert your edits when there are ANY disagreements, you'd better get used to working with others. Communication and civility are valued here. That's how we work.

When in doubt, or if you meet any resistance, the proper reaction is to back off, ask questions on the talk page, discuss until a consensus is reached, etc.. Never attempt to force/push your POV into the article over the objections of other editors. The resulting article will likely never satisfy you, and that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. Other editors have a right to their input, and they will likely find reliable sources documenting POV with which you disagree, but NPOV requires the inclusion of opposing POV. If a subject is fringe, the article will document that fact and the mainstream POV will be dominant. We simply reflect what RS say.

You also need to remember to use edit summaries for every edit and comment, use the edit history to check for edit summaries before making edits, sign your edits properly (using four tildes (~~~~), etc.. I'm going to leave a welcome template at the top of your talk page. It has lots of good links to help you get up to speed. Read them very carefully before proceeding. I will also leave a modified copy of this message, just for the record. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dash grammar

At WT:MOS#Why "unspaced" em dashes?, could you elaborate on the “different grammatical meaning” that you think spaced en dashes have? No one there seems to be aware of it. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting edits

Hi, Arthur. I'm not sure what your intentions were with this request, but I want to make sure you know that asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. As far as I can tell, Arzel hasn't acted on this, and hopefully he won't. If he doesn't act and I don't see any more such requests from you, I will let the matter rest with this reminder. --RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You're probably correct. However, the first point is just an error on the person's part. This relates to a clarification request I made which was ignored; if A really isn't related to the TPm, then the letter of my topic ban would allow me to remove the false statement that he is, but it would violate the spirit of my ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The "spirit" of all topic bans is to encourage otherwise productive editors to stay away from topics where they get into unproductive disputes. There are literally millions of pages on Misplaced Pages that don't have any plausible association with the topic ban, so why do you need to be editing at Koch Industries or worrying about the naming and use of TPM categories? This is a good time to pursue an interest in articles about horticulture or basketball or model ships or 19th-century British theater or physics or whatever, so that no one can question that you are faithfully following the spirit. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Santilli

I wouldn't bet that the comments aren't serious.

I read his comments and his website, and I got A Modest Proposal-like vibe from them. Then again, I also got batshit crazy vibe as well. It's hard to say if he is doing this just to piss people off or if he really is insane. Might be both. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

RSN

As I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, I'll post a comment I nearly put there here.

"I would hope that proven errors should be relevant to whether a source is WP:RS."... well I don't want to drag the discussion off-topic, but cf Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#.22Consortium_News.22_at_October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory, where a 1991 The New Republic article knowingly including a false claim on a key issue (per Craig Unger, who was there, and called it "the most dishonest thing in journalism" he'd ever seen, or words to that effect) continued to be merrily cited as a reliable source. In general, actual error (even deliberate error, on the rare occasion that is proven) seems irrelevant to "RSness", at least for things published by mainstream media organisations with editorial oversight. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom topic block on Tea Party movement

Arthur, I'm very much not trying to get you blocked; I'm warning you off so that you don't get blocked. But if you ignore the repeated warnings from myself, User:MrX, User:RL0919 and others, this isn't going to end well. MrX has already mentioned WP:AE, and to be fair, he's not wrong to do so.

Please work with us to prevent a completely avoidable block. You don't even have to acknowledge guilt. Just admit that your edits to Koch-related articles (especially Political activities of the Koch brothers) have been considered by some to be skirting the edge of your topic ban, so you're voluntarily avoiding those articles just to prevent the appearance of violation. This reasonable response will get all the pressure off you.

Will you do this? MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

You are the subject of an ARBCOM arbitration enforcement request here: WP:AE#Arthur Rubin. - MrX 16:26, 7 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)

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)

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)

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)