User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm going to be off the net for a few hours. I will come back and revert any further nonsense, easter eggs, and other irrelevant material you add to articles, but this is just to let you know that they will remain for a few hours, this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That sound like a good idea, that you will be off-line for a few hours ... Wikipedia:Adminitis maybe?
These pages contain material which is ha ha only serious. Very ha ha, but also very serious, so pay attention after you're done with the giggles! (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A complaint has been filed about your edits[edit]

Please see WP:AN3#User: and User: reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What? (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talk:Global warming[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Global warming. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User: and User: reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WARNING - Proper use of the "edit summary"[edit]

I'm assuming your habitual use of the "edit summary" box has been done in good faith, but its frequently outside the guidelines for proper use of that space. Please review Help:Edit_summary before you start editing again. Among other things, stringing on info unrelated to your edit (such as superfluous links to your pet project over at planetary boundaries is inappropriate and disruptive (see also WP:DISRUPT, which says good faith edits can still be disruptive).

Pursuant to WP:OWNTALK, deletion of any warnings from this talk page is evidence that you read it and have been placed on notice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey I see you are online right now, since my watchlist just popped a new msg from you a moment ago. Don't forget about this WARNING. Cool down the edit summary will ya? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Save Our Selves worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Why was the revert done by User:Marek69 (Special:contributions/Marek69), not you Special:contributions/Velella? (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's just how Huggle works sometimes - two editors see the same problem , one reverts and the other warns. Both editors think they have reverted and warned. Just how it goes. My reason for reverting was the inclusion of "Italic text" which was neither needed nor functional. The reference alone might well have been OK  Velella  Velella Talk   20:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I only added

* theme National Geographic July 6, 2007

the rest was not me. (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In your edit diff you can clearly see that the following: ''Italic text'' was added.
I'm guessing that it was probably a mistake, but it was for this reason I reverted.
I hope this answers your question.
Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 20:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I've had this added when I didn't add it myself, so I readded your (97...) comment. I've also seen it already on pages (software error, I'd assume). (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


At global warming controversy you nonsensically statedasked "This Ivar Giaever with the wp article referencing Jim Inhofe?" but that question lacks a verb, so I have no idea what the question means. Suggest you edit your remark to make your question clear. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

See WP:NFC (specifically, Unacceptable / Text / 2) and WP:NFCC for the reasons I'm deleting your long quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being so cagey and cryptic, Art. Attempt to avoid confusing wording. Be bold, be direct, please.
If you are afraid to have the text on Talk:Climate change policy of the United States, put it here and SHOW your edits. (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahem. It's a clear violation, even of fair use, not to mention the stricter Wikipedia requirements. It's not a brief excerpt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to put the excerpt on your own web site, and it survives a challenge from the copyright holder, then we might talk about whether the Wikipedia policies would still prohibit it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) ? You are typing that you are clearing your throat, how odd. (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I had assumed you were conversant with civilized chat conventions. In any case, if you want to discuss your copyright violations on the appropriate talk page, go ahead. It's still not a "brief" excerpt, and there was one court case that a one paragraph excerpt was a significant portion of a 200 page book. In your case, if you restrict yourself to 10% of the article, it might be appropriate, except that we don't Wikilink within quotes unless the link is non-trivial and obviously the correct link. You've frequently made trivial and incorrect Wikilinks, so I suggest you leave off Wikilinking within quotes, until you understand why emotion, for example, is hardly ever a correct Wikilink, except rarely in psychology articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that I remember Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas when interacting (or not) regarding you, Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin who states they are, without evidence Arthur Rubin. (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for posting it on all of your alter-ego IP talk pages. It saves trouble keeping track of who you are, and may help craft a range block or ranges to check for a potential edit filter. (Should I post this on WP:TEA, as well?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you randomly spamming links in edit summaries?[edit]

For example, this edit. It seems to be some kind of soapboxing and might very well be seen as disruptive, so stop doing it. That edit also happens to break the template used to display those charts, so I reverted it. Yoenit (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not "random". See your Talk page. My mistake, obviously. (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving "WP:Don't feed the divas" message at other users their talk page[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be disquieted by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any malice, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. So please stop with adding WP:Don't feed the divas to other users their talk page. -- SchreyP (messages) 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Special:Contributions/SchreyP. (",) (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello? (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Of interest?[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas > (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes from Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/; Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/[edit]

Per Special:Contributions/ (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Special:Contributions/


> See Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin, self-admitted Bias blind spot of User:Arthur Rubin. (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

- emotional problem with Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

+ Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC) (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Hello.  :-) (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. (",) (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi y'all  ;-) (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello to you too. (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ebikeguy (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Shale gas is not the same as oil shale[edit]

Dear anon. user. You added to the talk page of Shale oil extraction on 18 October 2011 and 5 January 2012 links to the shale gas articles. However, not disputing your good faith I have to say that these edits were not useful as these articles in The Wall Street Journal are not about shale oil extraction from oil shale, but extraction of shale gas and tight oil from shale (conventional gas and oil which is tapped in the shake and therefore need unconventional extraction methods, and shale not necessarily means oil shale). This is very different thing from shale oil extraction from oil shale. I would like to ask you to consider your sources provided by you in more critical way. I would also like to repeat my request to add new sources under the existing section you had created previously, and not to create a new section every time with the same or similar name. This is really quite disruptive. This was already requested here but as you are editing as anon user using different IP addresses, you may be not familiar with this request. As you have edited Wikipedia for several months quite frequently, I recommend that you will create your personal account for editing. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page edits[edit]

Please do not spam article talk pages with random links to article possibly related to the subject. If you have information you think the article is missing, be bold and edit the article and use the article as a reference. It is quite unlikely that anyone will use these talk page links for you. Rmhermen (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I plan to start collapsing such posts, which makes your posts look like this for example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What use is that, except to hide Talk topics? (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Because both policy and guidelines encourage removal of spam and vandalism, and arguably, your edits were a form of defined vandalism for this reason. I would like to encourage you to (A) get a regular login ID, (B) pick the juiciest of your new articles, and (C) actually work on the article itself to incorporate whatever you found. If you just add some significant sentences once based on one of your external links each week, that will be a much better contribution than flooding talk pages with thinks that looked interesting after a cursory glance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


-) (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello.  ;-) (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, including use of talk page posts and edit summaries as a way of posting promotional links, not as contributions to editing the relevant articles. Making a few trivial edits to articles after another editor has cited your lack of article edits as evidence of your intention makes no difference: it is abundantly clear that you have been using talk page posts as a way of calling attention to web pages and publications which you think should be publicised. Doing that is unacceptable whether or not you also edit articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been given instructions on how to request an unblock. If you just ignore those instructions and attempt to evade the block by editing from other IP addresses, the length of the block is likely to be increased, and any other IP address you use may be blocked for the duration of that extended block. Please either accept the block or go through the established procedure to request an unblock. You are very welcome to request an unblock, and if you are willing to undertake not to continue the kind of editing which led to the block then such a request may well be accepted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion, reset of clock[edit]

I just requested that the clock on your 30 day clock be reset (ie start over) due to block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes[edit] (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Trends (journals)[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Trends (journals), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. please do not add self-links (that is, links to specific journals which redirect back here). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Recursion. OK, thanks. (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking and AI incident board[edit]

Please read WP:OVERLINK and please do not post frivolous matters on administrator noticeboards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be much more specific please Special:Contributions/Electriccatfish2 ... (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Several edits from this IP address have appeared in Wikipedia's abuse log. However, since this is a shared IP address for Kalamazoo Libraries, the warning was targeted for vandalism from this IP by someone else on a library computer. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is this "abuse log"? May I see it please? (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Here's the page: Here's the entry: 23:14, 8 May 2012: (talk) triggered filter 172, performing the action "edit" on Christianity and environmentalism. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: Section blanking (details | examine) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Electriccatfish2, I'll check-it-out. 23:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Filter 172 indicates that the user has blanked an article or a section of an article for no specified reason (doing so is considered vandalism). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So is the edit of Christianity and environmentalism a concern of yours Electriccatfish2? Would you like to discuss it? If so, please read Mormonism and Christianity and Religion and environmentalism, then check the Edit history and see there was an attempt at encyclopedic clarification with the addition of "Mormons consider themselves to be Christians." which was appearently suggested as a negotiated resolution. This is a sensitive issue, per previous wp articles mentioned. Some Christians and others do not see Mormons as Christians. It does seems fine to me to add that statement. Since the issue is sensitive it would be best to add at least one reference, which is where it appears the negotiations brokedown to an unnecessary either-or. After you have reviewed the "evidence", what do you see Electriccatfish2? (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you are right. I have removed the warning. I deal with vandalism, not Christian issues. The thing that reported it, ClueBot NG is 95% reliable and patrols Wikipedia pages for vandalism. Then I usually revert it (no matter what the topic is) and send the user a pre-made warning template. I trust ClueBot NG to properly detect vandalism, but your case was one of the 5% errors by Clue Bot NG. I don't know why ClueBot NG detected a false page blanking, as I don't control the bot. I will try to be more careful while editing. Cheers! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Electriccatfish2, see you later. (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing. Jprg1966 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jprg1966 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu t/c 21:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Yet a further act of vandalism.
  • 21:43, May 15, 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-20,303)‎ . . Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This user should now be excluded from Wikipedia indefinately. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid we don't block even stable IP addresses indefinitely. 5 years seems to be the maximum. Now, the user should probably be excluded banned from Wikipedia indefinitely, but that should be discussed at WP:AN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OOPS, it appears that the semi-vandal (editing without concern for whether it meets Wikipedia guidelines, but without malice toward Wikipedia) has been replaced by a real vandal. Interesting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I would not characterize the earlier edit pattern as merely being "semi"-vandalism because (A) external link spamming is considered a form of disruption, (B) more importantly the IP could not be dissuaded after numerous attempts to discuss it, and (C) most importantly the IP engaged in intentional block evasion (via many IP socks) to continue the external link spamming during a 30-day block or this behavior. Sure, any single instance of this IPs form of external link spamming is trivial. It is the weekly, sometimes daily onslaught, despite discussion and attempts at enforcement, that changes this pattern from trivial to being truly disruptive. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it is not merely a "semi-duck". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For the GLOBAL WARMING interested editor formerly using this library address[edit]

Regarding your other IP addresses, I just started an ANI proceeding you may wish to address. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

New ANI proceeding[edit]

Please see this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Morihei Ueshiba because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.