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.

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

2010

I've restored a slightly altered version of it. The event in itself is significant since it was/is the country's first coalition government to be formed since the Second World War. Because of the first-past-the-post voting system it is rare to have coalition governments in the UK as, until fairly recently British politics has tended to be dominated by two major parties. I'm not sure I see the logic in your argument about the date of the hung parliament seeming "too particular" but I daresay you had something in mind. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems notable in "... in the UK" and "in elections", but, in general, the "first in 35 years" is not considered notable in year articles.

I think I get it. You're saying that, in terms of history 35 years is a drop in the ocean. Also, you seem to be concerned that the event is too localised and/or specific. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Thevideodrome re-added "noughties" to the 2000s, not me on June 21 and it had not been removed for four days which is why I added about "abbreviation" again. I posted on the talk page of Thevideodrome to tell them that it is undue weight. I also want to apologize for adding any incorrect information to the time articles but may I ask precisely what "experimental editing" is on Wikipedia like you warned me about a few weeks ago? 109.151.61.122 (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Who were you when I warned you about "experimental editing"? It's possible I used the uw-test template (warning of test edits) rather than uw-vand template (warning of vandalism). There doesn't seem to be a template for warning of an edit which is wrong, but not vandalism or a test. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm not a registered user, which could be why you can't find any warnings but when I slightly edited 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020 on June 13, all of this was undone as "unconstructive" and "experimental". That was what I was asking about. 109.151.61.122 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly per WP:SEAOFBLUE, although I think you may have been right on some of the incidentals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me

I hope I am not coming off as being rude, but this revert [1] reintroduces possible ambiguity for some our readers, but I'm not going to make a MOS fuss over it. It's consistent and allowed. I'll change the MDY template to June 2013, as the article has no DMY instead of MDY in it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the MOSDATE which has been continually discussed for over 4 years, yyyy-mm-dd is allowed for accessdate and archivedate; however, I agree with your edits eliminating DMY and some of the WP:OVERLINK problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arthur Rubin

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

interesting talk

Hi Arthur, I saw this on the BBC and thought you'd be interested: [2] Malke 2010 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Term graph

Hi Arthur, I had some thought about the issues you raised about term graph and decided to merge the article with (mainly) abstract semantic graph and graph rewriting (adding the subtopic term graph rewriting). I don't know if you are still interested, but if so, I would like to hear your opinion. Eptified (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried, I really did. Eptified (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You again mistake idempotency for reflexivity

[3] Stop reverting my fixes to mathematical articles since you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about. Here's some good advice - stick to what you know. Eptified (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"it is nonsense in set theory and in universal algebra, where I am expert;" Hahahahahahahahahha. Eptified (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think both parties should engage at the talk page with reliable sources and without personal comments. Spectral sequence (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Beginning the mediation.
Message added 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Could I please get you to weigh in on at least Inquiry #3 (and on #1 and #2, of course, if you have anything to say in regard to those). TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mich Kid

Hi Arthur,

Note that the servers believe the 12-month block will expire in August. I'd like to suggest that someone reset that clock BEFORE the server-programmed expiration date. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Emotion in Animals edit reversion of IP edits

Saw the note on blocked sock when examining another edit (repeat of the previous edit that you reverted). That edit has now been reverted and I noted the sock as well (new IP, 141.218.36.42). Perhaps semi-protection on the page, as the attempts seem to be happening weekly?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for combatting OR and possible COI here. I was afraid I was going to end up 3RR-ing the contributor, but you seem to have taken good care of it. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Heyheyhey222333

Hey Arthur get a life pal. I lived in Doha for 10 years. You clearly know nothing about Qatari society and how influential people rank. -heyheyhey222333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyheyhey222333 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Heyheyhey. It doesn't matter where you lived. Please read WP:RS. Thanks,  Yintan  08:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Ah yes: "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" I wonder if the Pythons knew how long that skit would remain current. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reversions

Arthur, please stop your disruptive editing. As a veteran editor, I'm guessing it is not your intention to be disruptive, but your recent reversions of my edits do not appear to be in keeping with policy, and could be construed as tendentious. Specifically:

• If you feel that Peter Joseph's speculations about his interviewer were inappropriate (and I'm not saying that you might not have had a point), then you could've compromised by removing that portion of the passage, while retaining the quite appropriate passage in which he states that the published interview was inaccurate. As it stands, I've tried to address your concerns by doing just that, but your throwing out the baby with the bathwater approach was not very constructive, and not in the greatest spirit of collaboration. You could've discussed with me, on the article's talk page, what portion of BLP indicates that an interview subject cannot make statements about the interviewer, but to omit the statement by him that words attributed to him in a published interview that is cited on Wikipedia are inaccurate, is clearly inappropriate, and no policy or guideline that I know of, nor any portion of BLP justifies it. I think the scalpel of removing just the portion you disputed, and leaving the rest, rather than the sledgehammer of blanking the entire paragraph, is a far better choice, don't you think? If you don't, then please discuss with me.

• As for your edits to the article Inaccuracies in the Da Vinci Code, they were even less justified, at least apparently. I introduced no "red links" at all in the article, as the only one, for the word homoios, was in the article prior to my edits, and I certainly did not add them. Nor do I see where I interpreted sources, let alone "misinterpreted" them, as per your edit summary. But if you observed such things, you could've fixed those things, instead of a wholesale, blind revert, in which you reversed a number of quite-constructive improvements to the article, including the addition of citations, the removal or updating of dead links, addition of fact tags to uncited material, addition or correction of publication information that was missing from several citations in the article, removal of citations that were either not needed or did not support the passages in question, etc. all of which I have detailed here on that article's talk page. If you continue to dispute my edits, please let me know there. Please do not engage in any further blind reverts. If you observe a portion of edits that you dispute, then fix it, or discuss it. But reverting things that you obviously did not read could be seen as disruptive, and does not lead to a resolution of any conflict. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, in your most recent edit, you removed the page citation from another citation by commenting it out for some reason, so that the note displayed in the Notes section merely says "The Da Vinci Code". You also changed the presentation of the author's name in the citation, which caused a citation error to appear in the Notes section. Seriously, are you even looking at your edits after saving them? Or using the Preview function? The only explanation by you in your edit summary was "Fix malformed citation templates; there is a serious citation style inconsistency, which these edits do not resolve" What edits? Mine? Who said they were intended to resolve citation style inconsistencies? And since when does a legitimate resolution to citation problems cause publication information to be removed from them, or result in citation errors?

And what consistency are you referring to, anyway? You can't be referring to the style of presenting the author's given name and surname in different parameters, because there's only one other citation in the article that does so. For my part, I prefer to wikilink authors, so I place them in one parameter. I've done this with the other citation that had them in separate parameters too, which you yourself could've done if you were interested in a compromise that facilitated an actual "resolution".

Please do not disrupt the article this fashion, or remove content without discussion again. If you do, I'll be forced contact an uninvolved admin to have you blocked from editing, which I would rather not do. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were sensible. The "title" field wasn't a title; I put in the real title and commented out what was there until someone could figure out what it was. I accept that your content edits may be constructive, although many of the citations are malformed or cite an amazon.com page when the actual book should be cited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You thought I was sensible? Just who do you think you're talking to? You made wholesale, blind reverts of the entire article, without even examining them, at least three times. The most recent of these was the one you made just now, which you clearly did out of spite, since you then went and reverted it after you took a look at the edit.

As for the Amazon cite, nothing you did required commenting out anything, nor did anything need to be "figured out", since the citation was clear. If anything needed to be "figured out", then you could've talking to me about it, instead of making a series of clumsy, inept reverts that caused content deletion and citation errors. You have a great deal of temerity to have engaged in the persistent mess-making that you've been in the past 24 hours, and then talk to me about "sensibility", simply because Amazon was named in a cite. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

publisher=Amazon.com is almost always wrong. I verified it was wrong, in this case. "title=Brown (2003), p. 36" was clearly wrong; I verified it was wrong, replaced the title, and left the false title commented out. When you reverted that change, you made a small correction to your original error, but it was still clearly wrong. I had typos in some of my corrections, but I suspect that your creation of the redirect Brown, Dan should be in violation of redirect guidelines.

Actually, I doubt you have correctly interpreted the sources, because your edits mirrored that of a banned editor, but I'm willing to AGF, and I'm not willing to use my limited Amazon in-book search allowance to verify your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion at Wayne Madsen

With you being an admin I'm disappointed with your editing of this page[4] against consensus and Wikipedia policy. After He has been described as a conspiracy theorist was added to the article lead, the edit was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the version accepted was He has been described by some as a conspiracy theorist. Then four days later you changed it to He is generally regarded as a conspiracy theorist. I again brought it up on the Talk page and User:Capitalismojo suggested we put it to User:Collect as an experienced BLP editor and go with him. Collect replied it is reasonable to say "(sources) have called him a 'conspiracy theorist'". It is not reasonable to include "batshit crazy" as that was an opinion from a single source, and is not placed in a neutral tone in this BLP. "Generally regarded" requires a more explicit source for the broadening of the claim than is currently provided. You then reverted it to your preferred version yet again. Six of the seven references are blogs covering a period of eight years, Wikipedia policy trumps your personal opinion and WP:NEWSBLOG specifically says "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." Please self revert. Wayne (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Although there is no one who doesn't describe him as a conspiracy theorist, I'm willing to see "he is described as a conspiracy theorist" rather than "he is a conspiracy theorist" in the article. "By some" is WP:WEASEL, although possibly allowable if we can't find a real characterization, "by critics" is too specific. I admit I can't find a specific source for "generally regarded", although it's undoubtedly true, and there's probably a real news article somewhere which says that. If you can find an honest characterization which includes the list of people who describe him as a "conspiracy theorist", it could be in the article (although that characterization might require a source), but "critics" is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem. We can't use "he is described as a conspiracy theorist" as it is too broad a claim to be supported by the sources provided and you don't like "by some" or "by critics" so how do you plan to attribute it? It would not be encyclopedic to name each blog that made the claim. I argue that "critics" is accurate as all those blogs were critical of his reporting albeit most incorrectly claimed that Echelon itself was a conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who says that he is not a conspiracy theorist? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no one who claims he is not a conspiracy theorist. There is also broad agreement (near universal) at the article's talk page and at BLP noticeboard for describing him as a conspiracy theorist. Arthur's edits are entirely reasonable and measured. I'd suggest further discussion on content take place at the article's talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Arguing that the edit is supported by there being no sources claiming he is not a conspiracy theorist is not only ridiculous but incorrect as there are several that say his reporting in general falls short of conspiracy theory. The claim must be attributed per WP policy. If you believe it does not have to be, then point out the policy that applies instead of basing arguments on WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If, as I tried to determine, there are no sources which say that he is not a conspiracy theorist, then marginally reliable sources can be used to support the statement. I believe we established that one of the 7 sources given was a newspaper article — in a local paper, but still an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That newspaper article was a single sentence with the rest of the article made up of quotes from four blogs. You are an admin so should know you cant make a definitive statement that violates Wikipedia policies. If you care to do a search, there is at least one RS (ISBN 9781588365330) that discusses the problems with Madsen's writing that specifically mentions, twice, that his reporting falls short of conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a reliable source. Random House does publish some books at random. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The author's bio. Any other objections? Wayne (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to say. Even if he is an expert on conspiracy theories (not established), it wouldn't be sufficient to include the controversial statement that Wayne is not a conspiracy theorist, while the statement that Wayne is a conspiracy theorist doesn't strike me as controversial. There's still room for discussion, though. Let's talk on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of merging former Emir of Qatar page (Sheikh Hamad) with present Emir of Qatar page (Sheikh Tamim)

From Editor858 - Arthur Rubin, it does not make any sense to merge the articles of the former Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Hamad) and present Emir of Qatar (Sheikh Tamim). They are both individual world leaders with accomplishments unique to their reigns and regimes. It would be akin to merging the articles of George H. W. Bush and George W Bush. What is your justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor895 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I replied, perhaps not all of them should be merged, but, if not, the articles need to be different. They aren't. Replied on talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

I received your message on my talk page. Docia49 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)I edited the first paragraph about the Burzynski clinic but you have changed it back twice to read, "The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976 and offering unproven cancer treatment. The clinic is best known for its "antineoplaston therapy", a controversial chemotherapy using compounds it calls antineoplastons, devised by the clinic's founder Stanislaw Burzynski in the 1970s." None of the information is sourced, but yet when I changed it to sourced information, you said my sources were not reliable. I really don't understand your changes. Docia49 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Docia49: The information is sourced further down in the article, including the fact that his "Ph.D." is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Can you please respond to my specific counterarguments to your statements on the talk page directly, instead of just repeating the same statements that I've been responding to in the first place? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I'm not saying this just because I think he's a nut. When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. The same applies to material which he thinks is false in his article. The diff of my complaint on Wikipedia would be a source, even if I didn't have a website of my own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your objections do not relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's false and you know it. I have referenced policies and guidelines numerous times throughout the discussion. SELFPUB says that self-published sources can be used if five criteria are met. Your position is that one of them, that the material not be unduly self-serving, is violated. I have pointed out that you and the others do not seem to understand what the definition of "self-serving" is, and I cited three reference sources that provide the actual definition, and asked you how pointing out that you did not say something that someone else says you did falls under that definition, and for your part, and the others', you persistently chicken out of responding to this, preferring instead to just repeat self-serving, self-serving, self-serving, over and over again like a parrot.

And in any event, if my objections are not well-reasoned, then why don't you explain why?

When I find false material in the article about me, and it's sourced, I point it out on the talk page; I do not remove it. No one did. What they did was add Joseph's statement that he was misquoted. So what are you talking about?

And what precisely that I wrote at ANI about Earl King's accusation was not accurate? If you're going to claim that something I said wasn't true, I'd suggest you back it up. Nightscream (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your falsified information and attack against me, Ascendah

It appears you have decided to take out your real-life anger out on me in what is a wrongful and incredibly hypocritical attack.

Edits include

1. [5] 'False, unsourced, and irrelevant.'

   I have lived in England my entire life and the information I added was very true - I have actually never seen a kebab shop without a chicken doner being cooked in the same fashion next to it - ask anyone that lives here. I live in London and there are TONS of kebab shops here, and I love kebabs. What's more, it is very relevant - in fact, the very definition of relevant. The only shred of truth in your statement is that it is unsourced, however all the other information before it was also unsourced, yet you picked my few words out of the ocean of words and cremated them - this is nothing less than a mean and personal attack, not to mention vandalism itself. (Incredible hypocrisy already)

2. [6] and [7] 'If you were an established editor, it might be considered a jest. As you have not had previous contact with Blueboar (talk · contribs), it just appears nonsensical.'

   It appears nonsensical? Your entire comment appears nonsensical, and I wasn't doing anything against the rules - in fact I was actually being productive in using sarcasm and humour (yes, it may not be to your taste, but that's irrelevant) to draw information and to further prove the 'theory' wrong.

3. [8] 'Even if it made sense, it would be about the subject of the article, not about potential improvements in the article.'

   Uh, hello? My edit made complete and thorough sense and there was absolutely no morsel of a good reason to remove it - doing so implies an ulterior motive, a personal qualm or perhaps both. Furthermore, your comment actually doesn't make sense itself - how contradictory! And it is about potential improvements in the article - to discuss my comment further would help to produce more (very relevant) information which would add to the article itself.

4. [9] 'repeated, after being deleted by the subject, as [10] Personal attack in the apparent form of a WP:Barnstar.'

   This is perhaps one of the few times you are actually (somewhat) honest, however it was only repeated as the revision history implied that my message was deleted by a bot, and not the editor themselves. I take responsibility for my slight rule-break here.

5. [11] 'Even if it were honest, which would require a suspension of thought processes, it would not sure any purpose in editing Wikipedia.'

   This is a talk page and was actually a very nice comment, I was simply asking a question - which would in fact contribute to Wikipedia. With the knowledge of Blueboar's fiction, all would have yet more information to benefit from - perhaps even contributing further to Wikipedia with new information that has otherwise been forgotten due to it's perceived low priority.

6. [12] 'On the face of it, it's a request for information to appear in the article. However, no one in their right mind, and probably very few not in their right mind, would think it relevant.'

   Well it seemed very relevant to me at the time - did I do anything against the rules? No, I was simply requesting information on the talk page. Yes, other editors may feel that it should be deleted but you cannot use this as a basis for 'vandalism'.

As anyone can see from the above conversation, you are in fact being incredibly hypocritical and contradictory, vandalising my page and my edits, falsifying information and personally attacking me. In fact, everything that you (wrongly) accused me of you are in fact doing yourself, with force. And once again, all that you are doing implies a personal qualm and an ulterior motive. Ascendah (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ascendah: I only saw your edits because I was monitoring #6 for WP:BLP violations. That one was so out-of-line, that I looked to see if you made other absurd edits. I found only one which was not absurd and did not violate Wikipedia policy. In regard #1; perhaps you are right about kebab places in your neighborhood, but, in southern California, I have not run across any such examples. The edits on user talk pages border on insult (not sarcasm), and appear to be insults without additional context. I you want to indicate sarcasm, use the appropriate markup: <sarcasm>. Tone of voice doesn't carry over well in text media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Aww... I feel like I love you now. <no sarcasm intended> <3 <3 <3 Ascendah (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control

I have attempted to respond to your question on the gun control talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You could use {{ping|Arthur Rubin}} so that the new notification system reports it, rather than cluttering this page.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

TPM

By order of Starfleet, you hereby requested and required to revert to this revision. :p Seriously, though, consensus on that page is in favor of reversion to that edit. Please revert it to such.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)