User talk:Arthur Rubin

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 2024 . 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 .

Status

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

WikiProject Philosophy Header

I understand your comment from the MfD now. The next question comes, can you have two colons in a page title? I think a better place for the header would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Talk header. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit war w/ X

Thanks, AR. I understand. Please note I had posted an inuse banner when s/he edited despite it. See my remark about the "edit war" on X's talkpage. When s/he did it twice I gave up.--S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

discrete semiprime

Can you tell me what a discrete semiprime is? I understand that a semiprime is a natural number that is the product of two not necessarily distinct primes, but I'm not having any luck with the modifier 'discrete' which shows up on many of the number pages.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntropyman (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are using "discrete" instead of "distinct". So they might be referring to non-square semiprimes.

If you gave links to the articles which bother you, this would be easier to diagnose and fix. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the recent unhelpful additions to the "Paradoxes" section of the "Perfection" article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Tunnel diode" on the "Talk:Perfection" page. Maurice Carbonaro is intent on reintroducing his irrelevancies into the "Perfection" article. I think it would be very damaging if he succeeded. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan & X?

I'm not familiar with Alan's history. And at the risk of sounding like X, can you specify what guidance I was infringing on with regard to the categorization issue? Egad, I certainly don't want to engage in behavior which even slighly risks blocking! My approach with X has been one of encouragement and warning. It looks like he's a former GI, as am I -- and I hope my kicks-in-the-pants along with atta-boys will help. I've urged him to edit in areas he knows more about (e.g., military topics), offered suggestions about article improvement, and I've praised him for dropping the out-and-out insults. Your guidance for me, here or via email, is/will be appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I searched and searched for info on commenting out the categories via an added colon. Eventually I found WP:SP. In trying to understand it, I developed a suggested revision. [1] Please take a look. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Sorry, who's Emerson? [2]

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (probably improperly) attributed to Emerson. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfD:Other people's money

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lgm?

I think you mistook Little green rosetta [3] for someone else. And using the third person pronoun, when you actually meant "you", made this remark a bit confusing. E.g., X had promised not to do it again. Was this late, late night editing, or early, early pre-coffee editing? Or am I misreading? (In any event, your reminder about the promise is most helpful.) Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Choice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of choice talk page

Arthur, it was Hugo who added the "SPECIFICO's edits" section heading, not X. And I modified it earlier IAW WP:TPO. As I know you to be most even handed, I'm sure you'll go back and fix the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the edit was typical of X, and I expected better from Hugo. However, I guess I need to clarify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxable income

Arthur, the tax credits are not deducted in determining "taxable income." Taxable income is gross income less deductions. Once taxable income is determined, then a separate computation is performed: the tax rate is applied to taxable income, to determine the preliminary tax figure. The "credits" are then subtracted from the preliminary tax figure to arrive at the tax amount. Famspear (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way I read it....

Tax = (tax on taxable income) less tax credits

Taxable income = gross income less deductions.

Perhaps the sentences needed to be reordered, but they both needed to be there. The anon deleted the tax credits sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will laugh

[4] little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't.

Because, were 2 pi + e to have equaled 5 instead of 9, for instance, its radical would obviously not have been an almost integer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.170.29 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi, Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain this edit summary to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I confused you with Xerographica. It's still the case that there is no reason to include the McAlister section, and it violates Wikipedia polices, but I'll have to consider whether your other edits are an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored your revert except for the excessive inclusion of McAllister's opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the dummy-edit clarification. As for the "McAllister section", it's still there, you merely removed a clarifying single sentence from it. Your edit summary suggests that a "good argument" for removing that specific McAllister content exists, but I haven't seen it. Could you direct me to it? I also certainly haven't seen an indication that policy (or policies) have been violated; which policy? My intent is to revert the bold removal of that long-standing content pending an actual argument for removal being presented, and an actual policy violation being specified (unless I missed an already existing discussion somewhere). I see that you refer to the content as "excessive", am I to understand it's a length issue? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The McAllister paragraph is much too long, as it is, and McAllister's opinions on desired future actions, as opposed to opinions about what actually happens or happened, is much less relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for rev deleting the foul comments on my user talk page yesterday. It's much appreciated!

- Mr X 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing at Koch Industries

I've created a new section on the Koch Industries Talk Page to discuss your disruptive edits there. If you can't or won't do that, I'll be forced to contact Administrators to help resolve this issue. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]