. I will reply on this page, under your post. |
|
Status
TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
edit warring
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Colony (U.S. season 2). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs) 18:07, February 2, 2011
- — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"
Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker, aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.
Furthermore, the second paragraph was sourced through the waybackmachine, it was not a blog entry.
Therefore, i'm undoing your deletion. Feel free to discuss it on the talk page.200.67.138.7 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) edit: sorry, it looked like i was logged in but clearly i wasn't.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't recall a weblog held by a well-known professional journalist as being allowed. I'll have to check on that. (Added: WP:SPS makes no mention of it.)
- The fake engineer is synthesis; that he had been listed on their site is one fact (properly sourced to the archive listing), and that he doesn't exist is another. A separate reliable source has to note the anomaly. Not that I think there's anything accurate on their web site.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to substitute my opinion for Arthur's, but I do have something to say on the subject. Some "professional journalists" are "well-known" for their capacity to produce hoaxes rather than debunk them. And even people who are professional in one capacity, may well be unprofessional--and outright kooky--in another. This is not a reason to dismiss all their writing, but it is a good reason to be skeptical. Even if Wiki generally allows writing by "well-known professional journalists", this does not absolve them of responsibility to provide accurate information. Perpetuating known hoaxes and conspiracy theories falls well outside that realm. Consider, for example James Watson, who is a well-known professional researcher--a Nobel Prize winner, in fact. When it comes to matters of history of biology--or perhaps even some modern issues in biology--he can be trusted to provide an account that's worth consideration. But when he switches to racial theory, there is a problem--his occasional racist statements are well documented and indicate propensity toward racial bias. In any case, "may be acceptable" is a very low-pass criterion, simply indicating that some degree of original research is allowed for some people, but is by no means automatically acceptable. Even these "professionals" are not above review and revision. I am a professional researcher, with a background very similar to Arthur's. And occasionally I find myself going back to materials that I posted and asking, "How could this go up without documentation??" Arthur and I have clashed over issues of original research and bias on several occasions, but I would not take what he says lightly. IMO, on this issue, he's on the ball. Alex.deWitte (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived, and the article still states "unreliable sources". I modified the article to reflect that on one link the journalist himself is stating that he was the fake engineer. I just wondered if the "unrealiable source" has to stay there indefinetly, if i need to bring other sources claiming the expertise of Attivissimo in the hoax debunking field, or what needs to be done... thanks in advance.
p.s.
hope everything's fine with your wife, and good luck!Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- There really should be a third-party reliable source for the information about the fake engineer, but if Attivissimo has the same credibility, as, for example, The Skeptical Inquirer, I'd be willing to accept it. There are some "Truthers" who might consider that questionable, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I’ll try Due to the very nature of conspiracy theories movements, though, the vast majority of stuff I have is from blogs or websites, since the conspiracy world has found a fertile terrain in the internet. No debates, no proof needed, etc. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it catching?
The same day I find two articles on this 2011 End Times thing, I find someone has created Alternative archaeology and tried to redirect Pseudoarchaeology to it. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's called a WP:POVFORK. If you don't like an article, create another one with a different POV and similar name, and redirect the original article to the new one. It's done frequently, but it's usually caught. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Koch involvement in various organizations
Since you seem to be a major watcher/whitewasher of conservative articles, please explain this one:
The Koch name is all over that article, as founders, funders, board members, etc. Some of that applies to many of the other articles which were reverted. You admit to having a COI because of your own political POV, and maybe everyone does in their own ways, but it shouldn't cause you to remove information that is well documented. That's unwikipedian. Should we create a subcategory for the Koch family category that can include the numerous articles on subjects which the Koch family are heavily invested, control, or fund? Please provide a solution as a sign of good will. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Koch family was originally intended for members of the Koch family, not for the organizations. Some of the ones organizations you added would fit well in Category:Koch family foundations, but not all, and the boundary between those which are and those which aren't is difficult to determine. For instance, Armey's organization is no longer Koch's, and there is no current credible association between the Kochs and that organization. Those organizations which are still controlled by the Kochs might fit in related categories, but clear evidence would have to be provided for each in the article. It is absurd to say that the TPm is controlled by anyone, so it shouldn't be in any such category. "Support" or "funding" are inadequate to support categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind the subcategory question; I put AfP, CSE, and Mercatus Center back, but removed some others which had been there previously, where the connection seems too tenuous to categorize then as being associated with the Koch family. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- He didn't fund "the creation of the Tea Party", and I don't think it would be adequate if he did; and Fred being "one of the (12) founding members" of the JBS doesn't seem an adequate connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the original intended": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Koch_family&oldid=49307217 thus not what Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin states above. 99.112.215.201 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"WP:RS is not transitive"
For the sake of consistency, I wonder if you'd weigh in on a similar debate at SPLC where an editor claims that a source is reliable because it has been reported by another source which is reliable. (previous & related thread). Though I'm still not convinced this argument wholly applies to the Koch Ind./Greenpeace context, it seems that another editor is making the same argument which you assumed I was making. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Need clarification with respect to OR and Monty Hall Problem
Within your response to my comment on Original Research at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics, you said "The problem is that an allowable rephrasing in most fields becomes OR in mathematics, as even a change in notation does not fall in the 'routine arithmetic calculation' exemption in Principles 11.". I have not been able to figure out to what you were referring when you said "Principles 11". Please explain it or give a link. Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Principles (11.0 and 11.1) in the proposed ArbCom decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. You were referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision#Original research (Mathematics). Somehow, I was looking at the wrong file (probably the talk page). Sorry for bothering you and thanks again. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
E-mail notification
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Mail-message-new.svg/40px-Mail-message-new.svg.png)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jeff Bedford 16:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
IPv6 edit war
You seem to be having an edit war with an anonymous IP on this article. Stop reverting and discuss please.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The IP frequently adds material sourced only to his imagination. This addition, in particular, is not sourced to the reference in question, although it may have a source in the article he's referring to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A little help please, no rush.
I'm looking at a post you made a few years ago here. I'm not sure I follow what you mean about the 'products' if you want to call them that, working out differently depending on whether you treat them as real numbers or as rationals. I'd appreciate your time at the talk page in question to help me hammer out your meaning before I begin to merge the articles. Thanks, Cliff (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Libertarian Party
Hi, is it really necessary? Since the claim passes WP:V and multiple reliable sources describe LP as third largest, I think this phrasing is unnecessary. Thoughts? --GalupK (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it is. All the sources are old, and Ballot Access, also a reliable source, says 5th (and probably means 6th). I reverted the addition of Ballot Access because it was ambiguous, but I'm sure there is a reliable source which keeps track properly of the major minor parties. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand your point. How about adding some latest sources? I've found some latest (2010-2011) sources:
- Encyclopedia of the U.S. Government and the Environment, page link, 2010
- American Government and Politics Today 2011-2012 Edition 15e, link, 2011
- African Americans and the Presidency, link, 2010 --GalupK (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on IPv6. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I tried to stop it by commenting on the talk page, but you did not stop reverting. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Contribution misunderstood?
13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Shrenujparekh (talk) i need genuine help..it seems that my facts/misc/info is misunderstood/interpreted in a wrong way i have written an article stating a new type of mean{releted to maths}(anti geomtric mean and anti-harmonic mean)
(don't hesitate to read plz)
who AM I? i am Shrenuj Parekh,india,mumbai.i am a small kid aged 17 years old. i love mathematics and aim to be a contributor(in terms of articles,innovations,inventions,formula's,etc.)in the field of Maths.
History of wiki contributed articles: i created an article on "anti geometric and anti harmonic mean"(a month back around) it was deleted reason(UNSOURCED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) SOURCE WAS MY BRAIN..............how could i ever link it with an external link?
i had gone a study tour in some town are(via college cause club).........so could not edit the page within 7 days and my article got deleted
a solution was sort by me.i wrote an article on my website relating to the same(aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com)....dated 0ct 16
. . . i decided to write the article again with an external link........... the twist in my story.........my blog has been shifted to (aweeklyriddle.blogspot.com(does not exist as of now)) TO (picturequizquestions.blogspot.com).for better traffic
WHAT DO I WANT?
my page is facing a chance of deletion.plz follow the link below to know more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_71#Anti-geometric_mean_and_anti-harmonic_mean_needs_rescuing
copyright issue{*don't tell this to anyone*} i am a 17 year old who likes to show off!!(just like any other teenage boy...) so in an attempt to impress peers i wrote"COPYRIGHT SHRENUJ 2010".........FOR MERE SHOW off and to impress friends...........i have no copyright,in short........
- To Shrenujparekh: I am sorry, but we cannot accept contributions which are discovered or made up by you. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, that is, you must have found it in a book or magazine by someone who is trusted by the community. This is part of what defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than just a blog.
- If your idea is correct and important, it is very likely that someone else has already discovered it. You might want to search the internet for it. If you can find it elsewhere, then check whether it is already in Wikipedia. If it is available elsewhere from a reliable secondary source and not already in Wikipedia, then you can create an article on it. In that case, you should provide a citation or link to the source you found. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I re-reverted, because your edit made no sense to me: to me it seems obvious that the base-10 logarithm is exactly what is meant there. Please take a look, and if you're still convinced my edit was wrong, we can try to figure out why we disagree.
Thanks,
—RuakhTALK 02:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Georges Roux and 2052
Hello Arthur, I see you seem to have a bit of a problem with my edits or with me personally, as you seem to be following EVERY edit I make, even if legitimate and are referenced, such as the edit in 2052. There are dozens of articles which read similar to that of Georges Roux (Assyriologist), but I don't see you or anyone else persistently editing them or reverting edits which are referenced, so I can only assume that this problem is with me. I would appreciate feedback or thoughts, as any edits I make are referenced. — Preceding xRiamux — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRiamux (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I explained, twice, why your edit to 2052 doesn't meet community standards. 2039 and 2045 are more clear.
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- And, when an editor persists in making inappropriate edits in articles I watch, I check his/her other edits. Most of the edits you reverted in Georges Roux (assyriologist) were clearly appropriate, although it would be nice if you addressed the notability issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Financial advisor?
Regarding this edit, Dr. Joe Gallian, who runs the Univ. of Minnesota Duluth REU program maintains a webpage called "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) where he has updates on where past Putnam fellows are today (including their achievements and such). The database listed your "Professional Appointment" as "Financial adviser (2005)". I was assuming he obtained this information by contacting you directly, but I guess I was wrong. Based on your LinkedIn profile, I have updated your Wikipedia entry to include positions in industry which you've held in the past. I also included this list on Dr. Gallian's "Putnam Fellows Career Path" (http://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/putnamfel/PF.html) Mozart20d (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would advise against using a web site under my control (my linkedin page) to support edits to the article about me. No offense, as I want accurate information in the article, but my statements are not reliable except under WP:SELFPUB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Jacob Barnett Article
Please could you comment on the veracity of the claims made in the new entry about Jacob Barnett ? You are a mathematician and an ex-child prodigy so your input on this issue would carry a lot of weight.--Mozart20d (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, why do you think/know those IP Users are the same person?
Per Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down, why do you think/know those IP Users are the same person? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Same edits, same bad grammar, same WP:OVERLINKING in edit summaries, same easter eggs. What more would one need? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit
Might I ask why? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:RY for the host city; recent consensus that planned spacecraft launches go only to ''year'' in space flight; and even more recent consensus that solar eclipses in future years are not notable. Consensus is either in WT:YEARS or WT:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- All right. Cheers! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
9/11 terrorist attacks
When you get a chance, can you please respond to this?[1] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Rubin, Would you be disturbed if I changed the title of the section Talk:Tetration#Inverse function articles to Talk:Tetration#Merger proposal. Since that is where the merge is being discussed, I think it is worthwhile. Awaiting your answer, Cliff (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please leave an anchor for the other tag, as that's how it's linked in various pages, including some ANI archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Mathematical edits
Greetings Arthur,
Firstly, I would like to express my regret at the confrontational disagreements you and I have recently had over various mathematics pages. I decided to join Wikipedia, not for the purposes of seeking arguments, but to contribute to and improve this encyclopedia, and I am enthusiastic about doing so.
Having said that, your last message to me contained some material which I feel obliged to respond to. And since the editing itself has stopped, taking the matter here seemed more appropriate. In your last message to me you said,
As you well know, course notes are not considered a reliable source; and the reals form a topological group, so an → x is equivalent to an − x → 0, and the statement generalized becomes 1/n → 0, which seems simpler than x + 1/n → x. But that is trivia. I'm just pointing out that your latest change is a style change, rather than a substantive change.
First of all, I have to say that I resent your tone. Although I have lurked and read articles here for some time, I have only recently begun to edit, and so as a matter of fact I did not 'well know' anything about course notes with regard to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. I was providing information in good faith, in order to persuade you, through rational argument, of something which you seemed to be denying. Furthermore, the material I provided did contain a proof, and I am sure that you have the mathematical ability to evaluate it and judge its validity! Incidentally, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to point out where exactly course notes are mentioned on the page you linked to me. (I'm not saying they're not there, but it's a big page with a lot of information and I'd be grateful if you could thus be more specific.)
Finally, I must just point out that if my latest change is nothing more than a stylistic change, then so was yours when you changed what I had originally put in the first place, (in the process falsely accusing me of having made a serious error.)Telanian183 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, if you're going to add explanatory material, you need to be sure it's correct; otherwise, in a mathematical paper it would be worse than useless. As for "course notes", they fall under WP:SPS; unless prepared by a recognized expert (with published papers in the field), they are not usable as references.
- I, personally, consider
- f(x + an), where an → 0
- clearer than
- f(an), where an → x,
- and there's no difference in the reals. f(x + 1/n) also fits better in the former grouping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Could I send you a brief email about an admin-related topic which would benefit from discretion? My email is listed on the top of my talk page. Thanks, Ocaasi c 08:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Notice that the "toolbox" box of links next to user talk pages contains an entry for "E-mail this user" unless the user has disabled it via his preferences. Thus one can receive e-mails from other users without revealing his e-mail address to the world. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks JRS, but since the whole MW 1.17 update, my .js has been bonkers and nothing is working as it should. So I have no such link in my Toolbox, believe it or not. I have a dedicated (throwaway) wiki email account, so Arthur can contact me there, and it's set up through the Special:Email feature, so that can work, too. Thanks for the help, Ocaasi c 09:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Your vote on Talk:Hard disk drive
Arthur, I took the liberty of changing the typestyle in your !vote so your meaning was clear for those who speed read. Please look at my change and revert if you don’t concur. Greg L (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)