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

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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.

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.

Vandalism on the "Life University" page

User 8.17.32.194 has so far twice vandalized the Life University page. He is deleting extensive portions of referenced information that is important to understand the history and political orientation of the institution. He has not posted any reasons for the changes in the discussion section and leaves the article with a biased POV in favor of the school. So far I've had to revert the article twice to undo his vandalism on October 6th and 7th. Please do something to stop it.~~AB

Use of the term "vandalism"

Hi,

You used Twinkle to revert an edit on Inflation and labeled it as vandalism. However, the edit was clearly not vandalism. It's an ongoing content dispute. Regardless of whether there is consensus (however one defines that) or not, calling edits like that "vandalism" accomplishes nothing other than to inflame the situation and insult the person making the edit. I urge you to show more restraint in future edit summaries and keep the tone of the discussion more civil. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to disagree; an edit made against a clear consensus needs to be called something. Perhaps I can reconfigure Twinkle to just say "reverting clearly unjustified edit" without my having to explain further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to use an edit summary like we encourage everyone else to, then perhaps you shouldn't be making the edit. But what you're doing is worse than not using an edit summary, you're using the edit summary to actually negatively influence the tone of the discussion. The problem with calling "an edit made against a clear consensus" "vandalism" is that interpreting the first part is subjective, but in almost all accounts does not rise to vandalism. In fact, we even have a policy page that explains this. kmccoy (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My turn

I entirely agree with kmccoy above in your rather indiscriminate and intimidatory use of the term 'Vandalism'. I would point out the guideline states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Whilst I may agree with you in principle as to whether a given edit was appropriate or not according to our many policies and guidelines, it is clear that at least some of the instances are NOT vandalism. In the absence of a proper explanation from you, I would have to conclude indicate edits that you simply disagree with an edit by another editor. You, as an admin, should know this manner of editing is highly intimidating, and may deter contributions from new editors.

Concrete examples of your inappropriate edit summaries:

You correctly removed linkspam with this edit. There's a lot of that going on in that article (and I see you already removed some before), but it's hardly vandalism. If you can use a proper edit summary before, there is no reason you cannot use it properly again as you appear to know the difference between the two.
You arguably removed original research in a biography with this edit, but I would once again contest the validity of the 'Vandalism' label you used.
It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits by a novice editor. As far as I can tell, this edit of yours signals a content dispute. You should have had the courtesy of making an entry to the relevant talk page.
It is not immediately clear to me why you reverted a series of edits at 4th Century. Again, there are no talk page messages anywhere. Thus, as far as I can tell, this is a content dispute.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tag restoration

The tag you restored states that the list is a biography. As it isn't one the tag doesn't belong. In any case it is poor practice to add or remove something controversial without weighing in on the discussion on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The tag should read that the list contains biographical material. Perhaps a customization of the tag would be needed, but that might be considered "piling on", as it's likely that even the people who agree that it should be there wouldn't agree on the customization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is for BLPs. This isn't one. In any case, removal or addition without trying to discuss is the wrong thing to do, which I assume you know. WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active in the discussion, as well, and {{BLP dispute}} is for articles containing statements about living persons, not just articles about living persons. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue, in addition, since statements about living persons are to remain out of articles unless there is consensus that they don't violate WP:BLP, that the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it doesn't apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem with you, Arthur, here: A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Please adhere to the policy regarding Tags. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem. You've misinterpreted WP:CONSENSUS so badly that your opinions on the issue as it applies to tags is <redacted>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romm again

Hi. Romm did indeed write the article that was linked to today, which link you deleted. However, I agree with you that we should not generally add ELs linking to Romm's articles on the blog. He posts several new articles to his blog every day. Also, as you'll see on the talk page, I replied to this anon editor: Romm fully supports McKibben. Their only disagreement is regarding the exact number that is achievable, and as to that, Romm says only that the facts are not yet certain. But he has been praising the goals and methods of McKibben's organization and McKibben himself. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domhoff on conspiracy theories

Arthur, I misunderstood what you said during the debate we were having in the Domhoff on conspiracy theories section of the [[Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)]] page. Here is what I meant to say: I'm not opposed to adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the Lead section but, as you can see from discussions in Archive 3, it was a major dispute that drove the Domhoff quote from the Lead section to the Alleged conspirators section. Do we really want to open that can of worms again? --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please.

Meneer Burger (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helping me

Hey, I posted a reply on my user talk page. Could you also explain on my user page what the last sentence of your comment means? Thanks! FFLaguna (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remade the edit on the Ban Ki-moon page, and it worked fine this time. I don't know how the URLs got screwed up. In any case, please swing by and explain what you meant by your last sentence on my user talk page. Thanks! :) FFLaguna (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

350.org RfC

Hope you'll participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonHoaxBat (talk • contribs) 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's Cool (film)

I found enough mainstream press to show notability, I think. Why oh why can't article creators do that? Fences&Windows 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on 350.org

Reported. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 'InnerParty'

Call me crazy, but I think Tachyonbursts is trying a different approach. You saw how his last sock was banned. However, not a day after that occurred that the user 'InnerParty' shows up and archives the thread, and gives me a barn star, despite not having edited before this point. Tachyonbursts has always complained that Wikipedia acts like a secret society, a cabal if you will, and a name like 'InnerParty' seems to fall in line with this idea. I wouldn't be surprised if this new guy is yet another sock, being used as a sort of 'spy' or 'infiltrator' to further troll us and the cabal he believes we belong to.

What are your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of current events, I would like to revisit this observation... --Tarage (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lean in favor at this time, but my sock identification is questionable, at best. I didn't recognize the ResearchEditor socks as actual socks, but only as wannabees, and I identified recently identified one which would have to have be a sleeper sock if it is a sock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing of the New World Order conspiracy theory article

Due to problems with my home computer, I may often edit the article anonymously from IP User:216.99.45.48 so please do not automatically assume these anyonymous edits are not constructive and revert them. Thank you for your understanding. --Loremaster (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Paltridge

Hi Arthur, what are your thoughts on what we do over at Garth Paltridge? As you've just asked, has anyone provided an argument for why a single line in Hamilton has weight sufficient to mention that Paltridge has spoken sometimes at conferences organised by Lavoisier. The answer, of course, is that no one has, and no one is going to (unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat with a new source we don't know about). What do we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman a clef & faction

Hi. Please don't identify edits that you disagree with as "vandalism." The pages for "Faction" and "roman a clef" were changed because they identify the same literary device and the roman a clef page was more developed than the faction page. Please visit the following web page. http://wordsmith.org/words/roman_a_clef.html In the future, if you have a problem with edits that someone is trying to make to improve entries on Wikipedia, go to the discussion pages for the relevant articles and state your case. Labelling this as vandalism when it clearly is not is in and of itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be vandalism, but it is mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on faction refers to it retrospectively as applying to historical novels, while the other one is as applied to current novels. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2001-2010

2001-2010 is not part of the same decade.

the 2000s are: 2000-2009 the 2010s are: 2010-2019 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.24.171 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decade, and it's very similar to 2000s (decade). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A notice that you've been reported to Wikipedia Administrators

Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism" and calming ruffled waters

Arthur, there's a lot of conflict on this page, and it's clear that sometimes your use of the term "vandalism" is upsetting people. Can you reconsider or ration your use of it, especially in edit summaries? As an admin, your role could emphasise leadership in creating linkages between editors much more, couldn't it? Tony (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone help me reconfigure Twinkle so that the "vandalism" doesn't give a secondary reason? When an editor makes many edits which are clearly improper, it would be simpler if I could leave no specific reason, rather than specifying "Vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the simple "revert" button, and use a custom edit summary. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I fear that continued accusations of "vandalism" are going to alienate newbies and upset established editors. Can something be done about this urgently, on a technical level? Until then, could you do the edit-summaries manually on these reversions. Is it not possible to engage the editor directly? That might garner some collaborators ... Tony (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Butler

Once again you deleted the page of a prolific author that sells well both in England and America. en.wiki has now more than 3,000,000 articles, many of them a mere one sentence long! Is there any justification to delete such a notable writer? (don't you claim to be "opposed to online censorship"?) Plus to that, I'd love to have your opinion as to the origin of the 360-degree circle, for in my opinion none explains best than his theory. I'd love a reply, thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I deleted it confirming a previous deletion decision, leading to it being WP:SALTed (blocked from creation). May I suggest that, if you think the result of the deletion decision is incorrect, then you should bring up the matter at deletion review, or request creation at articles for creation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Stop reverting non-vandalism as "vandalism"

Your use of the term "vandalism" in edit summaries where it is clearly not vandalism needs to stop. Continued abusive language in edit summaries may result in steps taken in the dispute resolution process, including a possible block. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Bsananda's edits, it qualifies as "intentional disruption". If that's not "vandalism", then what is it? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're referring to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing is not vandalism. I'm not convinced that those edits are intentionally disruptive, anyway, I think it's more likely a misguided attempt to help improve the articles, because what could he possibly gain by spamming Internet Archive links? But either way, it's not vandalism. You've clearly figured out how to revert and give a clear edit summary. You've been asked again and again to be more careful about your use of the term "vandalism". What will it take for you to finally heed that advice? kmccoy (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Jehochman's talk page

Ratel has made some comments regarding both of us that may interest you. My decision was to not report him for (WP:UNCIVIL). You can make your own call.--MoonHoaxBat (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it likely that they have coordinated activity, both on- and off- Wikipedia

So, are you going to substantiate that or withdraw it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "I think it likely", not that I have evidence. If I had intended to say I had evidence, I would have said so.

However, off-wiki coordination is impossible to disprove, and unlikely to prove, unless it was done in a blog or other public BBS. I had found evidence that KDP posted on your talk page about "problems" in the article which he was having difficult keeping in check, which sounds close enough to coordination to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You really have firmly joined the waste-of-space brigade. Find something meaninguful - which will be tricky, since it doesn't exist - or find something useful to do instead William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now look. Without some of the suggested modifications which you (among others) are opposing to the article, it clearly violates a number of Wikipedia policies. New editors (who may not be sock puppets) keep showing up on both sides of the issue, but still, under WP:BLP, something needs to be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coordinated!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I think KDP is far too overzealous my coordination with him and WMC is only when I agree with them. Polargeo (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a fish. Do I need a group of scientists on wikipedia who all began by combating articles claiming that it is not a fish and who now maintain a list of their opponents to keep them in sight? No. I shall simply call it a fish myself as an individual editor and hope that the community will join me in correctly assessing its fishiness. "Mmmm...trout...." Flying Jazz (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a fish. Maybe another one is needed. :) Polargeo (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing vandalism accusations

Arthur, people are complaining. Does your auto-edit-summary still churn out vandalism accusations? Can you deal with it, please? Tony (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. Sometimes most of the edit is vandalism, but there is a constructive component. (I hate it when that happens.) Any particular edit in question?

Is it possible to reprogram the "Vandalism" tag of TW to read "nonsense, vandalism, against clear consensus, or from a banned editor"? None of those SHOULD require an additional edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was Greg, it was a mistake. I actually only intended to undo that edit as moving an attempted CFORK, rather than reverting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors rely on the accurate description in edit summaries, to save their time examining every single edit. Some get offended when an edit of theirs which is not manifestly vandalism gets reverted with just such an accusation. Thus using false or misleading edit summaries in the way you appear to be doing is a great disservice to fellow editors. I don't think there is any issue with the underlying edits, which appear to be kosher, but the manner in which you continue to do abuse edit summaries when an increasing number of people are objecting to is pushing the good faith in your dealings. If you are unable to use an automated tool without it generating a false summary, I guess it would be best not to use it. Thanks for your understanding. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

warning

If you restore this unsourced edit and violation of WP:BLP again, I will block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to restore this edit of yours with a wholly neutral edit summary, such as "BLP violation redacted." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's as neutral as you're going to get: Restored comment with alleged WP:BLP violation redacted. I don't think anyone but you really thinks that stating that he's "considered" a n---- conspriacy theorist to be controversial, which is what WP:BLP restricts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wholly mistaken both about the ANI thread and your take on WP:BLP. If you edit war again in trying to restore a BLP violation you will very likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are the only one who thinks that anything but n---- is a violation, and I strongly suspect that (in regard talk pages), even that isn't a violation. WP:BLP does allow unsourced opinions to appear on talk pages. It's still not controversial, and I don't know why you keep adding the word "negative" to your comments. It doesn't appear (except negatively) in WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced negative commentary about living persons is not allowed anywhere on en.Wikipedia. This is your last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, that's not what it says in WP:BLP. This should be considered your last warning, if you intend to block. The statement is that unsourced controversial statements about living persons are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Negative statements need not be controversial, and controversial statements need not be negative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it helps the debate, but WP:BLP does not contain the word "controversial" (however the word "negative" appears nine times). HWV258 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary wording seems to be:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

At least 4 of the references to the word "negative" are in a negative context; stating that it's not relevant whether the claim in "negative". I don't see the specific claim (that Alex is seen as a n---y conspiracy theorist) as controversial or contentious, or even necessary negative.

I don't know where "controversial" came from, except that it seems the standard in WP:BLPN and in {{uw-blp}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pardon me for dropping in here, but it's perhaps time to look at WP:Wikilawyering now. Just because you don't see something as contentions doesn't necessarily qualify it as 'uncontentious'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as much as I do despise thought policing and we certainly handle all BLP unevenly ... in this case there was just a few words that the editor in question should be coach to avoid defaming someone, even on a talkpage, without strong reliable sourcing. It's generally bad form and should be curbed - cite ____ publication or ____ critic calls so-and-so a nutter. Is this valid to include more content on _____ - to avoid even the impression that we are forum slandering. I do think threatening a block is a bit much but maybe there are circumstances that this is an ongoing issue that has been heating up. I would hope all involved could find better targets for the heat. -- Banjeboi 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2000s

Arthur, I have to be gone for a long time (6-8 months). I hope that you will have the time to continue monitoring 2000s (decade) and keep it from turning back into a trash heap. You're a hard-nosed, commonsense kind of guy, and I suspect that after January 1, 2010, they'll be adding graffiti all over that article. Good luck sir. Un school 17:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits have been keeping the date range in place, removing the 2001-2010 assertions, but I'll try to keep it in order. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.196.23.148

User:68.196.23.148 keeps vandalizing the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Can you neutralize him? Actually, a semi-block on the article would be even better. --Loremaster (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

Please stop adding external links to unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .--Otterathome (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To what is that referring? If it's Alex Jones, it's not controversial that he is considered — well, whatever it is he is considered to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the above users contribs (user was blocked and another user brought it to ANI) and looks like this is the edit of yours he reverted.[1]. Just FYI, not agreeing with the reversion or warning.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I had just come to that conclusion. I don't see a BLP violation, but, had I thought about it, I might have agreed that the comment he removed wasn't helpful, but it is certainly related to editing the article.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Mathematosis

Wikipedia:Mathematosis, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mathematosis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Mathematosis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Well you were the only other one that contributed and that was the template it said I should use! Dmcq (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-block request for New World Order (conspiracy theory) article

Hello Arthur. Can you please put a semi-block on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article to prevent anonymous vandalism (which is bound to increase if we get Featured Article status)? --Loremaster (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind for now. User:SlimVirgin put a semi-block for a month. --Loremaster (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics Support System

The current description of LSS is wrong. What were my improvements flagged as advertising? The material is taken directly from the LSS web site which is a non-profit UN and World Health Organization sponsored agency. The existing Wiki is a combination of real and hypothetical when LSS is real. The LSS web site shoudl be considered conclusive. I copied the main description directly from the site and listed instances of its use from that site, with references to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.102.120 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's taken from the LSS web site, so it should be considered promotional material, although perhaps not technically advertising. It's still not a reliable source, as we define it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Institute, your interpretation?

I would like your feedback on this issue: Talk:Congressional_Budget_Office#Categorisation_rejection. --VanBurenen (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --VanBurenen (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vineland, New Jersey

I'm afraid I'm going to have to inquire as to what was "Absurd" about this edit. All I did was break up a horrendous paragraph that listed some historical interests in Vineland into a list and clean up some phrasing. — Music Maker 5376 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you just felt like undoing some of my edits? If you noticed in Phish, the comment I replaced in the lede is cited lower in the article. How about some WP:AGF? — Music Maker 5376 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like undoing some of your edits, because the first one (in 600) really was absurd, in addition to being untrue, unsourced, and inappropriate, because it's not about a number, but a depth in feet.

Vineland; the list would be inappropriate even if it were sourced, so I reverted to the previous, less inappropriate, text.
Phish. There, you have a point. It would have been better to move the reference to the end, though, as it appears it also is from the same reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit to pickup_artist

Could you please clarify why my last edit to pickup_artist was seen as vandalism? It seemed that I removing a link that does not work, standardized the English and obeyed the NPOV. Handrem (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]