Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 2 June 2010 (→regarding your reverting my edits: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Status

To Do list (from July block)

• Jay David Adkisson see if sources can be found for notability... (I doubt it, also.)
• Dasavathaaram; the movie illustrates/demonstrates what would best be called "coincidence theory", rather than chaos theory or the butterfly effect; that things and people once related to each other will interact again, perhaps in another incarnation. It's a little different than the law of contagion, but perhaps not significantly so.

Virtual Worlds vs. Virtual Events

Regarding this passage: "One of the key differences between virtual worlds and virtual events is that a virtual world is available as a persistent environment, even after the live part of the event is over", I believe the content contained at http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/download/294/248/ has been misinterpreted.

Virtual events most certainly remain available as a persistent environment after the live event is over. In fact, it's standard practice of virtual event platform vendors to keep the virtual event persistent for 90 days. While there are many differences between virtual worlds and virtual events, this is not one of them.

References: http://www.foliomag.com/2009/virtual-events-come-their-own - review the section labeled "Archive Etiquette" near the end of the article.

Dshiao (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Merging the articles for "Hyperplane" and "Flat"

• Hyperplane
• Flat (geometry)

I'd like to discuss the possibility of merging these two articles. Your opinion on this matter is welcomed: Talk:Hyperplane#Merge to Flat (geometry) Justin W Smith /_stalk 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm wondering if you could really be serious here, and exactly what purpose you see in expressing such encouragement....

Do you really think these are correct?:

• has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to include significant errors.
• Justice Barton identified 9 significant errors within the film.
• ...discusses one of the scientific opinions on climate change, as well as one of the scientific opinions on ...
• The British High Court ruled there were 9 significant errors in the film.
• Gore failed to mention that the Earth has cooled recently
• Lord Monckton, a former Thatcher Government adviser and policy formulator has proven many of the claims of Gore to be incorrect

All of the above are either highly subtly incorrect or highly POV... For instance the British court did not identify 9 errors - they addressed 9 claims of errors (which everywhere in the court text is in scare-quotes), the ruling is quite clear in stating that most of these aren't errors, but that many of them have contextual issues, that aren't addressed in the movie. (for instance 20 feet is entirely correct, but without the context of a timescale, it may be misleading).

It is a good thing to encourage newbies - but without addressing the problems with their contributions - you are setting them up for a meet with a hard reality later, when they haven't learned what exactly is problematic in their editing... and thus are prone to continue along the same path. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, to take one of your sub-points, courts (at least, in civilized countries), do not use "scare quotes". They use "usage quotes" — quotes indicating that they are referring to the term as quoted.

And, one of the scientific opinions on climate change probably is more correct than the scientific opinion on climate change.

Without looking at the ruling (which I'm not sure I can download), the British High Court finding that the film could not be used in schools without some restrictions (clearly true, in many sources) suggests that they found errors in the film. I haven't looked for secondary sources describing the opinion as to what errors the court found. The NZ court did find some errors, according to secondary sources, but "9 significant errors" doesn't seem to be there, either.

The new editor's repeat of "9 significant errors", attributed to different speakers, strongly suggests that he hasn't looked at the ruling or secondary sources, either.

Proven is just non-NPOV, regardless of accuracy. I don't think it's accurate, but some secondary sources have used the term.

But, I may have mispoke. However, some of the points that he made were more accurate that what was there before, but were hopelessly non-NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The judge did find 9 errors. Gore (and, in some cases, many scientists) dispute the claims that they are errors, but it would be incorrect to state that the judge did not find (in the sense of a legal finding) that there were 9 errors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct statement here is: The judge considered the claimants assertion of 9 'errors' - but didn't find that there was 9 errors. In fact in almost all cases he found that the 'errors' were not such, but instead were places where further explanation was needed. . He did not find 9 errors, neither in a legal or in any other sense. ... And that does make a rather large difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Then adjust our article on the case. It says (at the time I read it), "The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream." Although quite possibly incorrect, it seems reasonable that a "departure from the scientific mainstream" might be called an "error". I suppose it's possible that whoever wrote that took it from the plaintiff's briefs, rather than from the finding, but it appears to be part of the decision, . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I concede that the word quoted word "errors", as referred to in the decision (as referred to in that article), appears to mean "what the plaintiff called 'errors'", but the 9 that the judge listed seem to be what he calls "inaccuracies". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A "departure from mainstream" is not an error, unless you are willing to say that it is 100% that the mainstream is correct (and i rather think that you have a different point of view :-). Here are 3 departures from the mainstream, but of which you can't state that they are wrong: 1) Current hurricanes are influenced by global warming; 2) The Iris hypothesis (Lindzen); 3) cosmic rays influence clouds to a significant degree. I've corrected the Dimmock article back to the 'errors' version (which was overlooked in a vandal/POV revert in October) - those quotes are difficult to see in a diff ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've further adjusted it: There were more than 9 items which the plaintiff referred to as 'errors'; and the judge found 9 of them to be a departure from the scientific mainstream. The use of 'errors' to refer to the judge's decision, as opposed to the plaintiff's arguments, is misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about an edit summary

Hi Arthur. You made an edit with a summary of "I guess I should add myself, as a CalendarWatcher". What was the meaning behind that summary, and why did you use the words "CalendarWatcher" in that way (with no space between the words, and with both a capital "C" and "W")?  HWV258.  20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was more of a CamelCase pun—as you can see, I was adding myself to WikiProject Time, and I was spending a lot of time (OK, pun intended) on WP:DOY (Day of Year) articles, hence "calendar watcher". I think I was aware of the editor CalendarWatcher, but, IIRC, I wasn't really aware of anything bad he/her may have done, except being a little abrasive at times. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining.  HWV258.  10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chair

please take a look at the last two edits on Chair by 76.122.147.156 and deal with the situation as you deem appropriate. i can't entirely dedide if he/she's a vandal or an idiot who really thinks that's relevant. thanks.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too bad in furniture, if sourced, even to a book on pets or furniture repair. It doesn't seem specific to chairs. I think I'd just give him an {{unsourced}} warning (I can't find the {{uw-}} tag at the moment). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CarlHewitt SPI

Hello Arthur. At the above SPI, someone is trying to recall all the problematic editing that has occurred over the past three years, and you may have some recollection of that. It is argued that some individual IPs may be persistent enough to be worth blocking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I share your concern about some of the people on the 99 range (as i've mentioned before) - but is article talkspace the correct venue to vent such? As a side-issue from that, i'm rather concerned about the users who are using edit-comments to promote their viewpoints (ie. by stringing together various links not related to the edit). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps article talkspace isn't the appropriate venue, but there may not be one. Noting that a proposal on an article talk page is from an IP who probably would be (at least) under restriction if it were an editor, seems appropriate, even if that particular edit appeared (to someone, anyway), to be of good faith. I believe there have been discussions at ANI, but my recollection is that the IPs are too spread out to propose range blocking, (even though almost all edits from those specific IPs are global-warming related, they rarely return to the same IP) and the only other solution I can see would be to semiprotect all global warming articles (loosely defined). I suppose a filter could be devised to block all edits with a summary consisting only of links (internal and external) from an IP, but there's an editor with some form of autism (per his comment on his talk page) who also uses such edit summaries, who probably wouldn't understand what happenedif he accidentally logged out.

As a related question in regard that IP range, is there a (readonly?) bot which lists linked (not included) categories in articles; i.e. it detects ], as opposed to ]? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur,

I am updating Vaclav Smil's Wiki page and would like your opinion on the changes. I like to make sure i am doing it according to wiki rules.

Please advise.

Best, Olibroman 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking. With respect to your edits of 22 May (Pacific Daylight time): "The first non-American" is still not sourced, and the list of articles seems to be overkill to me. As his notability is not in question, only those articles which could support a statement which should be in the article should appear. (Yes, that sentence is difficult to parse.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your edits of 20 May, doesn't seem to say "Distinguished Professor" any more, and also appears to be Smil's own writings, so it might not be reliable; and doesn't produce much of anything for me. A "People" search for "Smil" finds him to be a faculty member in Environment & Geography, but with no specified rank. But perhaps I'm not seeing everything you are on the web site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me who owns www.vaclavsmil.com . If it's Smil or his publisher, the information may not be reliable, unless the publisher is considered a particularly reliable source. The lede of the article may also be a copy of that site, so may be a copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for yor quick reply, Arthur.

I have designed his website but i will either list reliable sources for all the claims made here or delete it altogether. I will also pair down his articles to 20 (great suggestion).

Questions: can i delete a section that was posted earlier by someone else since new andmore accurate info is now available tehre?

I learned one thing form this discussion for future posts: this is not a promotional page!

Olibroman 21:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olibroman (talk • contribs)

Request

If you have a few minutes to look over this and ensure i am using reliable sources, thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are, I'm afraid. Referring to the present version of the article:

1. Doesn't seem reliable to me; "About the author" blurbs are not always reviewed, even in reputable publications. Others have disagreed, though.
2. It's an opinion column, although usable to indicate Indur's views. Calling it an "article" is questionable.
3. I lean against that one being a reliable source; CEI's own information should be adequate to indicate that Indur participated, but the description of the film is as biased as CEI's would be.

Refs 4-6 should just be changed to the citation tags, rather than references. The books should be so changed, also, including ISBN's and publishers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i have changed a few things, but am unsure what you mean by 4-6 should be cite tags and not refs? If you can take another squiz when you have a moment i`d appreciate it thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

23 Enigma should include reference to Lost TV series

What do you mean by "this needs references?" I'm not stating anything that hasn't already been brought up in other Misplaced Pages pages, as the links show in the posting itself. There are no references apparent for the two films above the posting as well. So I don't understand your need to remove this when I'm simply stating "facts" that have been brought up on numerous other Misplaced Pages pages. This is not speculation on my part, these are straight from the other pages. I would appreciate this being added back because it took me a good deal of time to put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliejas (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any references in your post, and 23 is one of the numbers of Lost, so assigning it significance in this article seems questionable. Still, you're probably right. I guess I'll revert my removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:23 enigma#Lost for more discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note suggestion

Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Full_page_protection. Needs an admin, and your opinion would be valued. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Web Calcualtors

Last night, you removed multiple external links to web calculators providing useful free services to many users of scientific functions. Many[REDACTED] articles on topics that have calculational aspects provide links to web calculators. On most of the articles where you removed this information, this was the only calculator link, and web calculators for many of these functions are rare. Please cite an official policy justiifcation, explain your actions in light of these points, or engage in a conversation as to why you believe this information to be inappropriate. Ichbin-dcw (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO, probably #4, possibly #8, mostly #13, and, IMHO, #1. We may differ on #1, but #13 is clear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. #8 definitely doesn't apply: no flash or java is used by these calculators, just straight-up DHTML. If #13 is your primary criterion, wouldn't that apply to all web calculators? And yet many[REDACTED] articles link to related web calculators, and you even left a link to another one on the Bessel article alone. What makes one calculator of Bessel functions "only indirectly related" to Bessel function while another one (which actually calculates fewer of the Bessel functions with a less user-friendly interface) is apparently sufficiently "directly related"? Finally, regarding #4, the hosting site displays no ads and is simply provides links to the free, open-source software package that implements the calculators. The calculators, not the package, are the clear central focus of the target pages. Their purpose is no more primarily promotion than the Wolfram sites to which all special function topics link are primarily promotion for Wolfram software.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If the same link is in more than one article, it almost certainly doesn't belong. A link to a Bessel function calculator in Bessel functions is plausible; a link to a general special function calculator in multiple articles is not. And I don't think a general web calculator should be linked anywhere, except possibly in subarticles of calculator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition that web calculators can be relevant. And I certainly do agree that, as a rule of thumb, links from multiple different articles to the same web page should raise suspicion. But will argue that, in cases like this, such links are justified.

Consider how one might design web calculators so as not to violate the rule of thumb. It hardly seems a better user experience to have one web page with a single button for "Calculate Dawson Function" and an entirely seperate web page with another single button for "Calculate DiGamma Function". People are used to functions that are different enough to deserve seperate enclyclopedia articles being collected together in one calculator, and indeed usually appreciate that calculators are built that way. I trust that you will agree that "advanced functions" is a reasonable calculator grouping, and the Meta.Numerics advanced function calculator hasn't been made unusably confusing by collecting 20 of the most common advanced functions together.

Of course, you might agree to my points regarding good calculator design, but then simply conclude that Wikipeida should not link to such well-designed calculators. But that would seem to me to be a case of Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Users appreicate good calculators, and in this case, for many of these advanced functions, holding to such a rule would rule out linking to calculator functionality entirely. I have not found, by simple googling, any other web calculators for digamma, Dawson, Airy, spherical Bessel, Hermite, and several others.

Cases like this one are certainly not unprecedented in Misplaced Pages. For example, the very useful BlueBit matrix calculator is linked to from the Misplaced Pages topics on QR Decomposition, LU Decomposition, Eigenvectors, Singular Value Decomposition, Cholesky decomposition, and probably a few others. Please don't go remove those links! I think it entirely appropriate to group "matrix operations" into one calculator, and as a Misplaced Pages user I value the links to it from each of those articles. (BTW, I have no desire to add links to the Meta.Numerics matrix calculator to those pages; the BlueBit calculator already covers the field admirably.)

The situation with other Meta.Numerics calculators is similiar. For example, I placed external links from the Pearson, Spearmann, and Kendall correlation articles to the same Meta.Numerics calculator because that calculator simultaneously computes these three correlation coefficients for the data set it is given. But I am happy for the moment to limit the conversation to the advanced function situation if that simplifies the discussion.

Thanks for your efforts with me, and with the articles you maintain.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Any response? Sorry if that was too much of an essay. My basic points are: (1) A web calculator that met your rule would be a piss-poor calculator (e.g. one that could only compute a Dawson function). (2) The bluebit matrix calculator (which is a good and useful calculator) does not meet your rule, and is linked to from many varied topics.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Absent further discussion, I intend to add some of these back over the next few days. It appears that the sole remaining point of contention between us is around rule #13. I do accept yours as one possible reading of that rule, but I don't see it as following necessarily, and, as I said above, enforcing your reading categorically would be inconsistent with Misplaced Pages practice and detrimental to users. I will limit the links to articles where no other web calculator link is present.Ichbin-dcw (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A Message

Please see for proof of the existance of "millillion". Black Yoshi (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

2005

What was your logic behind the deletion of the mention of the 2005 UK election on the page 2005? It was just when I saw the mention of the Japanese election and George Bush being inaugurated for a second term I felt that the UK election was of similiar informative value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check whether the Japanese election had international significance, but Bush should go, also. See WP:RY#Politics and legislation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Partial Permutation & noncommutative logic

Hi there Arthur,

Why did you revert my added red link to partial permutations in Noncommutative logic? I was under the impression that (some) red links are a welcome way of bringing attention to needed articles, and partial permutations were certainly something I wondered what was while reading the summary. I'm putting together a stub article on partial permutations now, does that make the link appropriate?

Though I've been making small changes to Misplaced Pages for a while, I'm still essentially a newb and would appreciate any advice.

Thanks Dranorter (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's really what a partial permutation is, and it's relevant in noncommutative logic, then it's OK. In combinatorics, a "partial permutation" is a 1-1 partial function from (a subset of) U into U, but I don't know what that has to do with noncommutative logic either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's the same concept as yours, although using partial function explicitly seems to show the reasoning for the name better. Still, we would need a source for the relationship. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

PUA

Hey there. I stumbled upon your revert here (I'm the IP to whose rev you reverted). Just a note that I honestly don't see anything wrong with Djadvance's edits. iirc, "PUA" was introduced in The Game as the acronym for "Pickup artist", not for "pickup activity". Oh well, not a big issue. Re-revert if you care, or don't if you don't. --83.135.88.230 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. It's the "See also" link that caught my eye, not the PU Activity. As I still don't see why Seduction literature should be a separate article from seduction community, and I don't see any specific reason why Seduction literature is relevant to PUA, other than "PUA" appearing in the titles of some of the books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Kent Hovind Page.

I apologize. I am new at trying to edit. Can you tell me what are the acceptable sources to make this page less biased and more factual? Astrohm (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)astrohm

Well, Dr. Dino, himself, is not a source of information about the accuracy of his views, only about the views, themselves. May I suggest that, because of the generally tone of discussion, that you suggest changes on the talk page, rather than making them in the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

911 - In Plane Site

Thank you for your message following your removal of my corrections to the 911: In Plane Site Corrections.

After viewing the film several times, and carrying out surrounding research, I came across the Wiki article. The article describes several criticisms of the film supported by no citations or references - as can be seen on the page. This is clear bias.

Please answer the following questions

1. Have you seen the film?

2. The article makes claims of criticisms and counter evidence, yet provides no source for these claims, no references and no citations. Is this not clear uninformed bias?

My edits were to remove these unfounded statements about the film.

I have removed the line "Films such as In Plane Site and Loose Change only refer to the smaller hole on the second floor." Before trying to restore this line, please state publicly where in the film this claim is made.

The film can be viewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078# —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The film, itself, is not clear evidence of what it "suggests". If, as you assert, it does not make the disputed claims, the suggestions require a reliable source.

I've reverted some of your changes and tagged others. However, if your assertions are correct, the #Claims section also needs some citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. I haven't suggested the film itself is evidence that it's claims are true. My edits are made to ensure that claims about the film (i.e. claims about the content of the film) are accurate.

With regards to adding citations to the claims section, this should be optional. The article should accurately describe the content of the film. It should not require citations that either prove or disprove its claims.

I am disputing the way in which the word "clear hoax" are used in this sentence: "Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of clear hoax claims – i.e., the involvement of pods, missiles, "flashes", and tanker planes – with valid questions about the attack, is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association".

This reads as if the article is stating these claims to be a clear hoax. It does not read as if it is reporting the wording used by those making a claim. In actual fact, the use of the words "clear hoax" are used by those that beleive that no aircraft ever hit the Twin Towers. Those with this viewpoint beleive the video footage of the planes was somehow faked. Perhaps using hollywood style effects etc. Therefore they suggest the footage of the planes was a hoax. DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that the film is not a valid source as to what it suggests, only as to what it states. If, as you say, it suggests without specifically stating the pod claim, then the pods cannot be in the article unless a reliable source reports that as the view of the film. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that everything in the film is a lie, as reported by all credible sources, including many in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

As for the "clear hoax", I cannot see any way of reading it as other than that the critics believed it to be a clear hoax. If you want to clarify that, it's fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to edit the claims section of this article so that it more accurately describes the questions the film asks. The page first stated: "The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories," I attempted to change this to: "The film examines evidence relating to the events of 11th September 2001, and questions the official explanation of what happened on that day." The aim of the film is to ask questions about the official explanation for the events. It does not ask questions about conspiracy theories. Please explain how my change is incorrect. Also, as you appear to be determined to leave the original statement in place, please tell me one of the questions the films asks about conspiracy theories. In summary, I would like to know how the previous version is more accurate than my revision.

I would also like to note why you are protecting many of articles claims of criticisms, even though no references or citations are supplied. Does this mean you think it is OK for anyone to add claim of criticism to any article without sources? DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Erica Blasberg

I think that is silly that you will not include her in the May 2010 deaths. Your loss... she was a key sports figure... too bad, so sad that your rules have to be this silly. I have been editing on this site for almost 5 years!Jdcrackers (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the rules in those 5 years? In addition to to the recent WP:RY guidelines, the comment you just wrong wrote on my talk page wouldn't have worked properly. Ever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(Typo correction, but left the original in place for the benefit of those who like to see my misteaks.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

regarding your reverting my edits

I think i made a reasonable contribution, but you didn't even have the courtesy to give a good reason for reverting my edit here. Do you mind explaining yourself please before we engage in needless edit wars? I would like to reinsert this paragraph if you can't give any good objections. Thanks Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable start at an addition, but summarizing to one sentence, and adding information as to who and when set the date, might be more interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)