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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia because of hostile editing environment.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

Hi! Dear Arthur Rubin  !

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [1] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Innuendo

Dear Arthur Rubin,

I saw that your removed my section abouta blog about the ICD. I am aware that the section strictly speaking was not in line with Wikipedia policies so I won't argue that it should be undone. However I put it there because the article itself, which was started by someone at the ICD, is full of references to their own website, and because most of what is out there about the ICD likewise seems to refer back to themselves. The truth is, I only ever heard of them because of receiving some very efficient spam which targets university addresses and which is quite difficult to block. Googling them, it seems that spamming is in fact a very deliberate strategy that involves over 70 interns, and I'd like to unveil that. In any case, I get your point.

In a different vein, I think that the references section of that article could be improved, as it is not clear from the references exactly what they refer to: to their website, or to other sources. I'd like to change that, but since I did not start the article I want to be sure that I am not messing up someone else's work that has already been approved. Do you have any suggestions of what I might do? Best SkaraB 13:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, you are a member of WikiProject Mathematics and you are the first one who commented on this deletion, could you please comment here, thank you.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

Hi, do you mind explaining to me in simple English how the world's wealth was able to increase so much over the past two centuries. Also, will the enormous wealth of today be maintained? Pass a Method talk 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wealth per capita has increased primarily due to two effects:

• Increased population allows greater specialization, that is, more division of labor leading to more efficiency.
• Accumulation of technology, that is, knowledge of how to do things, and do them efficiently.

This should continue unless something interferes with these processes. Right? JRSpriggs (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Dear Arthur Rubin !2

Dear Arthur Rubin , based on your assertion :" Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker...." Please check here [2] and just say if it is OK or not. Thanks --Techala (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

CRU tag team reverts

Arthur, you once again performed a tag team revert on Climatic Research Unit email controversy without acknowledging or responding to discussion on the talk page. Your edit summary, consisting of concur with Tillman. The quote is excessive; if you feel it's relevant, please summarize does not even touch upon the points raised in that discussion. Furthermore, how can you summarize a quote? Your edit summary (and rationale for reverting) is nonsensical. Please consider this the last warning and do not do this again. Use the talk page to discuss your edits, not the edit summary. So far, you have not responded to that discussion at all. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is a "tag team", you are the principle member. You still have not supplied material in the article (either references in the lede, or text in the article) for your rewrite of the lede. You may have supplied references on the talk page, but you have supplied so many clearly inappropriate references, that it's hard to tell. This quote might be justified, but in the wrong section of the article. I've commented now on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion on the talk page, however, I have already demonstrated that it is in the correct place. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"In case of known edit warriors, such as yourself"

Arthur, please take a moment out of your busy day to count the number of reverts you've made to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy since January 1, 2011 and then compare it with the number I've made. I count somewhere on the order of 17 reverts from you. On the other hand, I've made a little over 10. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have made far more reverts than you're counting. On the other hand, I'm probably making more reverts than you're counting, so we may be about even. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding the names of editors to talk page headings

Re: User_talk:Tillman#June_2011: Arthur, as an administrator, you should know better than to restore the name of an editor to a talk page heading after that editor has objected to its placement per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA. If you aren't willing to uphold Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your role as an administrator, you may want to contact a steward. I can understand that you must feel tired and stressed from the demands and responsibilities, but your recent actions and comments have me concerned. In addition to restoring personal attacks, it troubles me to see you admit that you can't write from a NPOV.[3] Please make an effort to incorporate the policies and guidelines into your role as an administrator and uphold them, even if you don't believe them. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, on both counts:

1. It's your edit; removing your name in the title makes it ambiguous, although it may be possible to fix it by describing the "problematic" edit in more detail in the title. Hence, your edit damaged the talk page, even if some change were required by the policy.
2. It's not addressed to you, it's about your edit to the article. Tillman's request (earlier on the page) for another specific editor to reply to one of his questions is a violation of that provision, or possibly even asking anyone but you to reply might be violation.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all, Arthur, it is both policy and guideline; policy in the sense that personal attacks are condemned and editors should always focus on content not the contributor when discussing how to improve an article, and guideline which recommends avoiding using the names of other editors in talk page discussions about content. Finally, when an editor, any editor, asks you to stop addressing them in the header of an article talk page, you stop. What you don't do as an admin, is restore the attacks. It sounds to me like you no longer want to be an admin, in which case, you should ask a steward to relieve you of the burden. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're using a definition of "address" which I'm not familiar with. In fact, few of your sentences have accuracy in them.

1. There is neither policy nor guideline which states that the name of an editor should not be used in a section heading when necessary to describe the edit in question.
2. You are using the term "address" in a way inconsistent with normal English language usage.
3. What you removed was not an "attack", and it's removal changed the meaning of Pete's first statement. Pete's later statement that you are engaged in WP:TE might be considered an attack, if it hadn't been backed up by links earlier in the talk page. It's not irrelevant to discussion of article improvement, as it relates to (your) other edits to that article. It's not true that the value of edits to an article should be treated independently of other edits to the same article.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The TALKNEW guideline states that the name of an editor should not be used in a section heading. It is never necessary to address an editor in a heading when describing an edit. This statement is clear: "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user." When we say that headings may be about a user's edits, we are restating NPA: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor."
2. The definition of "address" is the one used by Wikipedia in WP:TALKNEW. In this context, it is defined as "greet, as with a prescribed form, title, or name; speak to". This is consistent with normal English language usage.
3. The removal of my user name from the header did not change the meaning of the discussion, and we don't use article talk pages to discuss other editors.

Let me know if you need any further help. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Wrong. The definition stated does not cover the use of your name, and the last sentence does not resemble WP:NPA.
2. Your definition, and the corresponding one in wikt:address (verb, 8), does not cover the usage made, which is referring to you, not asking you to respond or addressing the comments to you.
3. That's a matter of opinion. However, it's common courtesy, to list (or anchor) the previous section name, even if inappropriate, so that editor can understand the context.

Thinking about it, the section head might be a violation of the fourth subpoint, "Never use headings to attack other users", but it may also fall under the exception. The title seemed a neutral description of your edit. If it were to say "V's latest absurd addition", that would be an attack, but "V's latest inappropriate addition" would not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas

Hi Arthur - I just added a post to the existing AN/I thread that Viriditas started providing some diffs and asking for people to comment on his behavior. I figured I would let you know, since you also seem to have had some problematic contact with him. I know it would normally be more fitting as a WQA post but WQA asks you not to post if there's a thread elsewhere already dealing with the same issues. I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution processes in general, but am hoping that getting a few additional outside editors commenting will yield productive resolution. Since you have had prior contact with him, I'd appreciate it if you could chime in with your thoughts on the ANI thread. Kevin (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Isolationist

You originally unlinked neo-isolationist with a comment that "Mead's definition is clearly different than ours. The alterative is note that Mead is clearly wrong." Only after the link was restored by Will Beback did you add the {{disputed}} template, specifically to the linked word. Under the principle that neo- is not without meaning, and noting that the isolationism article has no discussion of either neo-isolationism or the United States, I then repointed the link to the neo-isolationist section of the grand strategy article. This section has a definition which seems to correspond exactly to the description of Paul's position, without any mention of abandoning or curtailing international trade. Since this seemed to remove the original reason for adding the tag at that location, I'm hard pressed to find a reason "the tag shouldn't have been removed". Fat&Happy (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mead is wrong, even by that definition, as "... in order to maintain its national security" is not part of Ron Paul's statements or any identifiable part of the TPm philosophy. I still think we're synthesizing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, linking provides an editorial voice that that's what the word means, and Mead is either wrong or doesn't agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for some input/advice

Hi Arthur,

I'm currently involved in what is unfortunately looking more and more like an edit war with an IP editor on the Shinji Ikari article. The problem is over the inclusion of Category, specifically Category:Fictional bisexuals. Before I removed the Category, I did some research and looked at both when it was added and if it had been discussed on the talk page. From what I can see, there was no consensus to add the Category and that there are no sources provided to back it up. Since this is quickly descending into edit warring(Or may already have), I wanted some advice as to what to do next. Normally I would try to talk to the user, but since it's an IP that doesn't have any history beyond these edits and is trying to use livejournal and youtube as reliable sources, I don't know how to try to talk to them. Should I request mediation? The article is quite small and I don't see a lot of edit activity. If you could give me some advice as to not make this worse, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation doesn't seem helpful with unstable IPs. If it's a stable IP, which it seems to be, mediation or even WP:3O might work. However, you probably shouldn't ask me. I've been involved in too many articles where consensus was never attained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IP Jumper

I see you have had your hands full with IP jumper 99. This person has used no fewer than a dozen different IP's that I have noticed. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Burzynzki

Hi Arthur,

Why should you be looking for work? I know plenty of pharmaceutical companies that would pay you for the work you are doing on the Burzynski page of Wikipedia.

Have you seen the Burzynski movie? Are you able to watch it? it's currently free to watch on www.burzynskimovie.com until the 20th June.

It's hard not knowing all the rules around editing but i am currently studying them to be able to update the page with informative, factual evidence and i would like to work with you in this. If you are itching to remove/undo a future edit on the Burzynski page, please think twice, and ensure you are editing according to the rules. I can see below you have reactively edited and then agreed that another, less severe course of action was probably more warranted.

People that are dying and have been given a short amount of time to live, are trying to get information on this subject. All i am asking is that you follow the principles of Wikipedia in your future edits on the Burzynski page.

One day someone you love, or perhaps even yourself, will get cancer. I'm sure you will think about this differently then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.183.109 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide sources which are not "B" himself, or quoting "B", that material should probably go in the article. You haven't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Transcendent Man (film)

For what reason are you disrupting the Transcendent Man film article with blanket reverts, removal of an image, and deletion of a list of people who appear in the film? So far, your edit summaries do not support your edits. Please make use of the article talk page to explain your edits. Viriditas (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a blanket revert. In general, a "list of people who appear in the film" should not be in the article about the film. And I did question why they appear, on the article talk page. I'll check to see whether you have a credible justification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, a list of people who appear in a film is called a "cast" and the list you removed is supported by the external link to the imdb which lists the section you removed as a cast. Film articles on Wikipedia use cast sections. If this isn't making sense to you, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user 93.203.251.228

Hello there, just thought I'd inform you that you've blocked this IP user, but not put a template on his page informing him of it and what he can do to appeal it. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. And it appears my block reason was wrong, also. I'll repair the damage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

CFR links not current

Dear Arthur Rubin, HELP! As a result of a recent edit by another editor to a page I watch, links to the Code of Federal Regulations were changed to the form 26 CFR xx using AWB. This {{}} tool does not link to current regs. The GPO has instituted an e-cfr system which has text of CFR updated daily for changes that become effective the previous day. The WP automated link is to OLD (like over a year old) regs. I'm not sure how the tool links or how to fix it, but it needs fixing if it is to continue to be used. Thanks for your help. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please describe what the correct URL looks like, and I'll see what I can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:September 11 attacks

Four different editors have of late removed the conspiracy links from this template. I strongly encourage you to cease adding these links to this template. If you are not satisfied, you well know WP:DR. Please follow it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if there is a, well, "conspiracy" to unlink the conspiracy articles from the (relatively) sane articles, and then delete them as a WP:Walled garden. Tom Harrison disagrees, but I don't see any reason to doubt it. That would be a violation of Wikipedia principles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I have no stick in the fire. I don't care. I happened across the template from seeing an edit MONGO made elsewhere. Now, it's four editors removing the links and only you adding them back in. That's an edit war. Any suppositions on the intent behind anyone's edits is beyond my interest level. But, before making that case I would urge you find actual evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, only one editor (MONGO) replied at the talk page, giving a justification for the removal, and two editors (Moxy and I) have agreed that there is no current consensus or justification for the removal, so that status quo ante should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is linked to in List of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that subject to systematic removal, as well? In any case, it's still a matter of which the 9/11 WikiProject should have been informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no such matter at hand. WP:9/11 has only nine members, with one inactive, leaving eight. MONGO is one of the most active members and represents the project. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur...in April I awarded you a Defender of Wiki barnstar for your 9/11 article related work, and I stand by that decision. We may not always agree, but I hold you in high esteem nevertheless. Best wishes to you.--MONGO 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I believe it harmful to Wikipedia, I see a clear supermajority (which is not the same as consensus) for the CT links not to be in the template, although no reason has been given for removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

IP complaints

Hi. My talkpage is getting swarmed by IP voices of recognition and complaints for editing an article on environmental migrants. This is to let you know that at least one such user has complained about your removal of repetitive usertalk messages about editing sustanability articles. Although you might not take their concerns seriously or perhaps consider them to be trolling, I tend to consider concerns of any Wikipedia editor seriously regardless of their POV or involvement in editing disputes. Also, I am not asking that you remove any comments from my talkpage, as I still consider them legitimate issues. If you wish, you may respond here rather than on my talkpage, and we could start to resolve the dispute between your editing style and the concerns of certain IP editors. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The March 30 issue was in regard a clear violation of WP:CANVASS; after discussion with a few editors I decided not to revert such violations in the future. I don't recall what the May 19 issue was, I may have hit the wrong key, and the IP restored it within a minute or two, so I may not have had time to self-revert. The comment you received (sent to approximately 7 editors by 2 IPs, that I know of), is also a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, although probably not WP:NPA.

The IP editor is now up to about 20% (at least marginally) constructive edits, 40% violation of WP:OVERLINK (or WP:EGG, or both), 20% incomprehensible talk page requests (usually with a subject line longer than 255 characters, containing URLs, and requesting addition of a reference, without specifying why it is relevant or what it is intended to support), 10% comprehensible requests, 5% style violations without specific reasons, and 5% attempts to link to their pet project. The current pet project is [[planetary boundaries]], but others have been 350.org and sustainability. Of the 20% marginally constructive edits, over half required patching to properly link what they intended to link.

For what it's worth, I also removed at least one talk page comment which was both incomprehensible and had unclosed tags. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As for the non-constructive edits, sometimes I miss giving a reason for my revert the first time, but I give a reason the next few times, and then give up on giving reasons after the IP continues making the same edit without giving a reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

IP Jumper

The IP jumper has violated a 1RR here. Not sure how to handle this persons editing on articles like this. However, you seem to have some experience dealing with them as well. Arzel (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not successfully, I'm afraid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be getting quite bad. This appears to be one editor, or maybe a couple of editors working closely together adding a ton of POV edits to a great number of articles. And since they are jumping around so much it is all but impossible to stop, and their doesn't seem to be much interest in stopping this particular POV pushing. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries

Well you really surprise me. You have placed a POV tag on this article and announced at DYK that you dispute its accuracy. That would have been fine if you had said what your dispute is, and why you consider the article is POV. But you do not appear to have done that anywhere. Have you got some reasonable argument? If not, then what is going on with you? Admins should not behave like this. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede sentence is synthesis ("Planetary boundaries is an earth system framework...", and I still doubt the notability of the individual "boundaries", as opposed to other (potential) boundaries and/or values of the boundaries. If you would write an article about the framework (not presently described in the article), rather than about the individual boundaries, it could be a worthy article. I'm not sure that "accuracy" applies to an article about a theory, only weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no synthesis here. The reliable sources[4][5] are based on this summary which describes planetary boundaries as an Earth system framework. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong. It just shouldn't be linked, as there is no claim that it's "science". It does say "earth system".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't you just unlink it? I realize you have had a long and frustrating history with waring IPs who were trying to write this article. There is nothing personal, Arthur, in me retrieving the article. It was not aimed at you, I just thought it was notable and should be written properly. I see you revert vandalism on Wikipedia, rather than writing articles. But I am not one of your vandals, and I object to you treating me like one. You really should be able to discriminate between vandals and content editors. You state you have an objection about the framework versus the individual boundaries and make a dark comment about "weight". That is opaque and explains nothing. Can you please explain what you are talking about? There is already quite a bit in the article, which I'm only halfway through, about the framework. And why are you attempting to torpedo the article at DYK by publicly damning it as inaccurate? Please strike that comment, or set out a credible defence of your position on the article talk page (which you should have done at the outset). --Epipelagic (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with J. Johnston; this article should not exist under this name. If the general concept of "planetary boundaries" could be sourced, that would deserve an article. You still have not provided evidence of notability. An article which shouldn't exist shouldn't be tagged for DYK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of notability is found in the sources. On what basis do you question the existence and notability of the article? Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some evidence of notability of the initial article (which should be titled Planetary Boundaries). The subject would be worthy of note, if there was a source. All sources refer to the article, rather than to the concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is appropriately titled "planetary boundaries". You are confusing the house style of one publication with the appropriate title on Wikipedia. Please actually read the sources rather than making strange comments and edit warring over tags. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different issue. The notable subject is the article "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity"] Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32, not the general subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The title is correct per guidelines and the subject is notable. If you claim otherwise, please provide policy and guideline based arguments. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the subject were as you say it is, the article would be named planetary boundary. It isn't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would good if you can explain your position, if you have one, with some clarity. Are you now arguing over notability or over the title of the article? You have agreed that the article wasn't inaccurate as you claimed. Then above you seem to be saying it is now notable as well. Then bless you... you move your uprooted posts and drive them in again, claiming the real problem is that the article is wrongly titled, and should be called "Planetary Boundaries" (again without any reasoning). Then in your next comment, are you saying it should be titled "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity" instead? Please present your reasoning on the talk page of the article, where it belongs. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You've just violated the 3RR

Please self-revert, otherwise I will report you. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, I haven't, even if you consider my addition of the {{notability}} tag as a revert. The addition of {{POV}} was not, and the first removal of the Earth system science link was not. You've reverted three times, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You reverted three times as well. Is there a particular reason that you are edit warring over maintenance tags and links instead of contributing to a discussion about it? Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now self-reverted 2 edits, leaving my count as 2. By the way, you are not welcome on my user talk page. Please discuss your concerns on the relevant article talk page. (This is the first time I've requested this of anyone. I hope you're happy.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your dysfunction

Actually, Rubin, however awkwardly IPs state their case, it is you who comes across as the POV warrior. It is time you came clean and explained where the obsessive flurry of obstructive edits you make on planetary boundaries comes from. There is nothing I can find in the literature to support your position, apart from some throwaway comments made by Stuart Pimm when the concept was first floated. And I note that Pimm does not appear to have repeated or expanded his objections, and it may be that it is Pimm who has the egg on his face. Are you coming from a religious fundamentalist position? Or is it just that you genuinely believe, that even if God if not looking after all of this for you, then everything is going to be fine anyway, because that is what you want, and that the concept of habitable boundaries must therefore be nonsense? If these comments misrepresent your position, then it is long overdue for you to explain and justify just what your position really is. Can you do that? If not, then soon I'm going to start reverting your more eccentric and dysfunctional edits. You are bringing administrators into disrepute behaving this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're talking about. (1) The concept of a "planetary boundary" (or perhaps planetary boundary framework) may be notable and scientific, but no support or definition has yet been provided in the article. (The general concept of a "Tipping point" might help, but I'm not up to writing that article.) (2) The paper "Planetary Boundaries" appears to be notable, but not scientific (as they note). (3) I have severe doubts as to whether the specific 9 (or 11, depending on how you count them) boundaries are notable, except in the context of the paper. The article "planetary boundaries", at present, has the lead for the first concept and an article on the second (and the third, as appropriate), and the IP is attempting to construct links to the third.

This has nothing to do with whether I believe the paper is accurate (as far as it goes), or the concept is relevant. The original TTAPS paper was notable and relevant, but not scientific. (In fact, it probably qualifies as pseudoscientific.) Until real scientific papers were produced, an article on the paper would be appropriate, but an article on nuclear winter probably would not have been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Decimal Calculation

I've been looking pretty hard for sources. The book's been cited many times but not discussed. It might meet "how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media" from WP:BK#Academic and technical books. Anyway, you were talking about possibly nominating the prior content so I thought I'd drop you a note.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm willing to let the notability question wait, although I would probably !vote "delete" if it came to AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning on 17th century BC

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 17th century BC. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quit removing factual information regarding Pfizer

Quit removing factual information regarding Pfizer. I will sit here and revert your changes forever.

I've explained why it shouldn't be added. Pejorative information with no source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I will provide a source then...if you remove it after that we know your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a reliable source, it still goes. And the comment above isn't supported by the material below, even if it were sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider Pfizer to be a reliable source? This is your final warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is not in material created by Pfizer; to give your comments the best possible light, it's your reinterpretation of that material. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You would do better to discuss it on the talk page. I'm not a fan of Pfizer, but we (Wikipedia policy) do not allow unsourced pejorative comments, even about a company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The factual statement, "Premarin, a hormone replacement drug created from the urine of pregnant mares which a percentage of are eventually sent to slaughter houses" come from the GAO slaughter report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceforall911 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice work

		The Special Barnstar
		For your extraordinary diligence on climate change articles, accompanied by an amazing ability to stay out of the mud. SPhilbrickT 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(I really wanted a "takes a licking and keeps on ticking barnstar, but I couldn't find one)

3RR?

I don't think I'm edit warring and I'm not trying to edit war. I only reverted one person's edit. The article seemed to be better as I wrote it.-Rememberway (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's better, you have reverted to reinsert τ at least twice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, when you tagged me I had only done one revert. -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I just did a second revert when you tagged me, I backed off on it to see if I had missed anything, but I've decided to go forward with it. I'm nowhere near 3 and I'm not planning to revert even if Fly by Night reverts me; (and he may well do, he seems to have generally lost the plot). -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Gandalf 61 reverted an anonymous editor, not me, I didn't even look at that edit, nor did I revert it.

FWIW you shouldn't take Fly by Night's edit reasons at face value, as he seems to have lost the plot a bit, for example he's currently claiming I'm an SPA(!) (But my contributions are not consistent with that.) -Rememberway (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good point. You may not be the anon. My apologies if I doubt or doubted your word, but I work in sock-puppet-filled areas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You have my condolences. FWIW, it's possible to confirm that that's not my IP, but I don't think it would have made any sense for me to log out for that edit anyway. The thing was it was 'tau day' and there was about two thousand potential editors sloshing around that day. -Rememberway (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at [6] and the block history here [7], Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not socking, and I'm quite willing to have a check user done to prove it. Note that Wolfkeeper account is not under any restrictions at all either (but I scrambled the password so I can't get it back.) -Rememberway (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you are socking. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

tau

I wasn't going to bother you, but I wasn't sure whether you'd read the history, Fly by Night recently removed the whole thing, we had got a link to turn (geometry) obviously because there's tau radians to the turn, which is what makes it useful of course since a turn is an identity. Or link to Pi#Criticism? I'm 3RR at the moment on it due to wretched Quandle, but obviously do whatever you want. -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. An Erdos number of 1? Sweet. -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

p.p.s. poodle of doom could well be a sock puppet, feel free to check user, it's not me either! ;-) -Rememberway (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

About Convention (norm) edit 06:39, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143

About Convention (norm) edit 06:39, 1 July 2011 87.19.76.143

Which are the few which you agree to and which are these you do not agree to?

Mormegil 87.18.197.73 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)