User talk:Rp2006: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Off-wiki communications: I am nobody's meat puppet
→‎Off-wiki communications: Who are the {{tq|team of editors, well known on WP}} that RobP said you are both members of?
Line 760: Line 760:
{{outdent|:::::::}}
{{outdent|:::::::}}
I am a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism|WikiProject Skepticism]] which includes this article. I regularly look through the articles there, looking for places to contribute. In this case, I also had this article on my watchlist after the subject was covered in a podcast I follow, the ''Skeptic's Guide to the Universe''. RobP absolutely did not contact me, either on Wikipedia or off, to ask me to restore his contributions. That was completely my own initiative, as the appropriate response to your deleting his talk comment. If there are occasions where I have agreed with RobP, that should hardly come as a surprise when we are debating matters of evidence.--[[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 03:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I am a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism|WikiProject Skepticism]] which includes this article. I regularly look through the articles there, looking for places to contribute. In this case, I also had this article on my watchlist after the subject was covered in a podcast I follow, the ''Skeptic's Guide to the Universe''. RobP absolutely did not contact me, either on Wikipedia or off, to ask me to restore his contributions. That was completely my own initiative, as the appropriate response to your deleting his talk comment. If there are occasions where I have agreed with RobP, that should hardly come as a surprise when we are debating matters of evidence.--[[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 03:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:Who are the {{tq|team of editors, well known on WP}} that RobP said you are a member of? [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 03:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:29, 2 June 2021

Basic Wiki info

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Wikipedia Adventure details
Hi Rp2006! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:19, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Alan Hale article

Subsections

Did You Know?

The article got just over 12,000 views due to DYK appearance (See here), but my analysis indicates it would have been ~38,000 if not fot DYK hook modification by DYK admins. RobP (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet

This article was sent in a tweet by Wikipedia's Twitter account on 11/8/16, resulting in over 13,000 pageviews (slightly more than its DYK posting results).[1]

On 18 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Hale (astronomer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alan Hale, who discovered Comet Hale–Bopp (pictured), said that he "predicted" its appearance would trigger suicides‍—‌and it turned out he was right? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Hale (astronomer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Hale (astronomer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

The article Alan Hale (astronomer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alan Hale (astronomer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original notice

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan Hale (astronomer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cenker article

Subsections

Did You Know?

On 28 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert J. Cenker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that RCA's only astronaut, civilian Bob Cenker, narrowly avoided catastrophe during his mission on Space Shuttle Columbia, which experienced several launch-pad aborts and almost exploded? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert J. Cenker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Robert J. Cenker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article's DYK appearance garnered 9,493 pageviews, [2] enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

Summary: The article was promoted to a GA on 2/9/18, but shortly thereafter rolled-back to a B when the original reviewer was chastised for routinely doing shallow reviews. After making a set of small changes requested by a second reviewer, Mike_Christie, the GA status was again granted to the article on 2/17/18.

Original notice

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert J. Cenker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RadioFan -- RadioFan (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Sorry I did not have time to rescue the GA review. I have a lot going on IRL right now and was not able to put the effort in I would have liked to. In the meantime, you may want to have the Guild of Copy Editors look at it, or otherwise copy edit it yourself. That was the main thing that stuck out to me while I was reviewing it. If I get time I will copy edit it, but I will probably let someone else review it at that point. Thanks for the work on the article! Kees08 (Talk) 19:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08:

OK.... How does one get a review by this Guild? RobP (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the instructions on WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and it will be about a month. They will probably be done with it before your article is reviewed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good article approval (Original)

The article Robert J. Cenker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert J. Cenker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RadioFan -- RadioFan (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rereview of Robert J. Cenker

Hi -- I wanted to let you know that the GA review of Robert J. Cenker has been reopened; see here. I've completed a new review of the article and have left some notes on the the GA review page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article approval (Update)

Robert J. Cenker has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 17, 2018.

Science Moms article

Subsections

Article creation

A page you started (Science Moms) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Science Moms, Rp2006!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The lengthy block quotes can probably be succinctly summarized. This is an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the suggested changes a while ago. RobP (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know?

On 15 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Moms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the goal of the Science Moms documentary is to challenge the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, pro-alternative medicine culture affecting parents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Moms. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Science Moms), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK History:

  • On 11/25/17 this article was approved for Did you know...? placement and was moved to the approved page. RobP (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a second DYK review (requested after WP:Notability issues were raised), on 12/10/17 it is was re-approved and moved to the DYK Queue page. RobP (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning at 7pm EST on 12/14/17, the article was featured in DYK for 24 hours. RobP (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here for full DYK nomination discussion.

Hi! I translated your article into german. I would like to use the Science-Moms-Logo in the german Wikipedia, too. Can you help me get a permission? I don't know how to do it. Thank you! --KAMfakten (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle article (deleted via AfD)

Subsections

Proposed deletion

The article Kenny Biddle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article is a vanity advertisement for subject. References are brief mentions or articles written by subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kenny Biddle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenny Biddle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN

There is a discussion at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about your article. Elektricity (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Nygaard article

Subsections

Article creation

I published the Bob Nygaard article on 2-25-18.

DYK nomination and discussion

Hello! Your submission of Bob Nygaard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I attempted to address your concerns. RobP (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK results

This article's DYK appearance garnered 11,127 pageviews, [4] enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know?

On 11 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bob Nygaard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bob Nygaard, a private investigator specializing in psychic fraud, has been instrumental in the return of millions of dollars to victims of this crime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Nygaard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bob Nygaard), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Photo Ark article

Subsections

File:The Photo Ark (book cover).png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination discussion

Hello! Your submission of The Photo Ark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Photo Ark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in May 2018, the 8,000th animal was photographed for The Photo Ark project, which aims to document all 12,000 species living in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Photo Ark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Photo Ark), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article's DYK appearance garnered it 3,377 pageviews.[5]

GFS sculpture photo deletions

GFS sculpture photo deletion info

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup of foot).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup of foot).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Other photos

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining patrolling

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Belgian UFO wave into Black triangle (UFO). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly added new information but I do believe some was copied from Belgium page into the Belgium section of the Triangle page. Thanks for the info... I was unaware of these rules! RobP (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FDA vs FTC in Homeopathy

Hey, I like your recent additions to Homeopathy but it seems like you've interchanged "FDA" and "FTC" in the text a little. For instance the citation you added named "FDA2016" is actually an FTC document and although it mentions the FDA in passing, doesn't commit the FDA to doing anything. Likewise the next sentence talks about "an FDA press release" but the citation is to a press release on the FTC website. I was going to fix it for you but I figured you might still be editing and I just thought I'd call it out. --Krelnik (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Should be all FTC - and should be correct now. If I missed anything else, feel free to fix it.RobP (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Good edits on the Homeopathy page, well done!! EYN72 (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 2016 FDA ruling (previously added to article) to the lede as a summary. Also added associated FTC info to article.


Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Guy Macon: I followed this link and can find nothing! Can you elaborate? RobP (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed and archived. You can find it in the archives at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive287#Request_to_overturn_administrator.27s_decision ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA review of Osteopathy

Rp2006, if you wish to do a valid review of this article, please follow the instructions at WP:GANI. Reviews should go by this process, and occur on their own page, not be inserted directly on the article's talk page. I'm going to revert your edit there; you are welcome to open the review properly and include your comments on that page, and then close it per the instructions. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at the article history, and I see that you've made 16 edits to the article. According to the GA instructions, reviewers should Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review. Since that is the case, you may not be eligible to review it. What I would suggest instead is to post your issues on the talk page, and how the article falls short of the GA criteria, though not as a formal GA review. When the article does get a reviewer, you can then post a pointer to your talk-page post on the review page, and any further explanation you feel appropriate. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Rp2006. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to RPM reverted.

Your change to RPM has been reverted. Per WP:MALPLACED, please do not point "Foo" titles to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles. Also, please do not ever change the nature of a redirect with a large number of incoming links without first obtaining consensus. Please note that all incoming links must be fixed before such a change is made. bd2412 T 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Paranormal" and UFOs

Please do not add "paranormal" banner to pages such as Majestic 12 and other articles, when the explanation for these events are either a hoax, or has been explained in ways that have nothing to do with any paranormal activities. If you disagree, please take your reasons to the article(s) Talk page. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my response from Talk:Roswell UFO incident:
@David J Johnson:: To me, your take that this and other UFO-related articles should not connected with the word "paranormal" is extremely odd. What do you make of the fact that the paranormal side banner (which you deleted) actually includes UFOs in its list, and that most all UFO topics have the WikiProject Paranormal banner on their talk pages? Also note that in the category listed below for this article, "paranormal" is included numerous times. As I understand it, your objection to this is because UFO's are not "real"? Well (likely) neither is Bigfoot or ghosts or energy healing, so are you going to claim those - or anything else that is wrong or a hoax - is not a valid paranormal topic either? If that were true, then nothing at all would be classified that way, and the word would lose all meaning! RobP (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on the Roswell Talk page, as previously requested by myself. David J Johnson (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Skepticism contact

Just a note that I have replied to your questions there, in case you're not watching the page. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 12:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal section argument

Hey, with all due respect, why in the world did you remove the rebuttal section in this article, here?

Thank you for weighing in on the [talk page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyler_Henry&diff=next&oldid=782698059] about your edit. However, your removal of this section has made the article one-sided and biased.

I agree my edit was "too short," but what do you propose as the solution. Please don't complain unless you have a better idea. I mean, all that psychic stuff is spooky (and I honestly don't know whether it's true or not), but you have this huge section "against" the subject, and the small section "for" him was deleted, making a biased article even more biased. This is not encyclopedic.

But, if you mean that my edit (adding the rebuttal section in right here) was too brief and curt, I would agree with you. Help me fix that, so the article is balanced and explains both (or all) sides of the issue. Thank you.96.59.177.219 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair, I also added a criticism on religious grounds (saying he is fake if he gets his information from demons), which helps balance the article, since I added back in the thing you deleted, but expanding it to make it Encyclopedic. Read both my edits before you make a decision, ok? Thanks.96.59.177.219 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that your edit was too short. A Wiki article is not the place to have an ongoing argument. Reliably cited facts are stated in a Wiki article and then, when appropriate, challenged... either in a criticism section as here, or after each point. There is no Rebuttal section needed. Should there then be a Rebuttal to the rebuttals section? And so on? If there are more (reliably sourced) facts on the positive side, add them to the sections above Criticisms. Also, please open an official Wiki account. RobP (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B&B AfD

AfD

I hope you see how you screwed yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida). I think you overestimated the degree to which editors would respond to your call that BnBs were involved in writing articles about these houses in order to help business. You kept adding new entries after the AfD started under that same rationale and the aggregate refused, preferring to keep NRHP sites. I made the case in my comment that GEOFEAT requires more than listing but you didn't make that case and you confused the issue. Sometimes you're going to do a good job of providing rationale and the aggregate will just vote per WP:ILIKEIT, which they do pretty often. Sometimes, however, you present a less-than-stellar case and you get your ass handed to you. I wanted to see deletions but that didn't happen and your AfD stats remain a pathetic 0% with consensus. Anyway, please learn this lesson and perhaps next time you'll be more successful. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: First off. What's with the hostile attitude? Second, I screwed myself? How did I do anything to myself? I don't actually have a horse in this race. I observed something that seemed untoward, and put it out there for the community of those who might care (and know better) to confirm or deny. If they decide to KEEP, so be it. And as for the "you kept adding new entries..." Well I actually did it all in one sitting within a very short time. (Maybe a half hour?) I put the first B&B up for AfD and only then discovered the bulk option. So I went right to work adding the others that looked to me to be related. How was I to know some folks would be so hot to vote almost instantly before I was done, and then others would use that as an excuse to say KEEP? In any case, it seems that what I did wrong was to lump houses together incorrectly, not realizing the differences in the type of house. As I understand it, you are free to fine tune this and try again. So if you are more knowledgeable about this subject than am I, just renominate the B&Bs that you feel are of the same type type and deserving of deletion. A sincere good luck! RobP (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No hostility on my end; I apologize if it sounded that way. Again, I agree with what you were trying to do. What you saw was untoward. I thought you went about it the wrong way and the inclusionists got you. I'm not going to renominate any of those this year as the aggregate's going to reject it. Maybe 2018, if I even get around to it. Anytime any page goes live you should expect others to see it within minutes. You own your AfD ratio. If you don't care, fine. For me, if I make a nomination under a rationale and it fails, I'd take the aggregate's rebuke seriously. So, for you to say that you don't care sounds like you didn't believe in the case you were making. AfD isn't a method of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. I was offering advice to help you, which I guess isn't wanted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RobP i came here to sympathize about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida) in a friendly way, which I think is what User:Chris troutman was meaning here too. I don't understand everything Chris troutman is saying but agree with the general gist of it; he is sharing about how hard it is sometimes with AFDs when a bunch of wp:inclusionists get riled up, as happened here, and he is trying to suggest how to be more successful. I am an inclusionist myself, but i am feeling a bit cranky and commented negatively about the NRHP articles having existed 10 years without improvement. I mostly work on NRHP articles. Me and the other NRHP editors have succeeded perhaps too well in convincing others that "if NRHP then good sources exist, so Keep" (even without the sources being included). I wouldn't advise trying to get any NRHP articles deleted, as will probably fail, although I do agree the category you pointed to, of houses in Florida (almost all NRHPs) is quite bad quality. FYI, it is especially bad because [Wikipedia's] NRHP coverage in Florida is the poorest of anywhere: there are about 2800 NRHP articles nationwide which a bot detects and labels with "NRIS-only" tag identifying as being very minimal; one quarter of those, 780 recently, are in Florida (which is about 1/2 of all Florida NRHP articles being minimal, a far higher percentage than anywhere else, [despite NRHP nomination documents actually being available online for almost all Florida NRHPs, but not used]). The bot statistics are at WikiProject NRHP workspace page wp:NRHPPROGRESS, by the way. Hope this helps give some perspective somehow. Cheers, --doncram 00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also now ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam House about another NRHP article. --doncram 22:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Burnham Jr. Photo?

Hello, Rp2006. You have new messages at Talk:Robert_Burnham_Jr.#Photo?.
Message added 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Made reply on article's Talk page. RobP (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 12/14/17 Tony Ortega sent me a photo he is owner of and I had him email Commons their license verification form. Just now I uploaded the photo to Commons and added it to the info-box.RobP (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rp2006. You have new messages at Talk:Robert_Burnham_Jr.#Photo?.
Message added TuckerResearch (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re: ATT Network block of IP 107.77.224.0/22

Hi Rob, I blocked that range because of how quickly IP addresses change within it, making it very easy for vandalism to slip by unnoticed or improperly reverted. See this page history (from my edit onwards) for an example of this). A lot of edits from that range are also vandalism. I think the vandalism risk is outweighed by the collateral damage in this case. As you said, users affected by that block can still log in to edit; it's also possible for them to create an account if need be. Graham87 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David paulides page

I am not trying to start trouble, but I have some concern with the page on David Paulides. I don't think that it is a fair representation of him or his work. I totally understand and support skepticism, but I think in this case, it is a bit bias. Specifically, I'm referring to his missing 411 books. Reading through the information there, it seems as if it is intended to discredit him, instead of provide information about his work. I have personally read all of the missing 411 series and the information he presents is all fact based. The skeptics quoted were inaccurate in their portrayal, and they obviously had predetermined conclusions on the validity that influenced their reviews. He never once purported to know a cause or causes of the disappearances discussed, furthermore, he goes to great lengths to explain that he only listed and wrote about cases that fit a certain criteria of unexplainable circumstances. Which is contrary to what was said by one or more of the skeptics quoted. I won't take up any more of your time bringing up examples of how they are being misleading, but I would appreciate it if you could look into this a little further and maybe correct some of these things.

Again, I'm not trying to be one of those egotistical guys, that thinks they know better, or gets off of on finding and pointing out perceived mistakes. I'm just pointing it out because I think it's a misrepresentation of his work. I also believe that people need to be made aware of the things he discusses so that they can be more careful when visiting the outdoors. I know his intentions are to educate people, not to frighten them. Thank you, regardless of what you end up doing with this information, I appreciate you taking the time to read this and hear my thoughts. -Dustin Dustin sharber (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin sharber: I am copying this to the Talk page for the article in question[6] as that is a more appropriate place to discuss the topic. 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe

Hi Rp2006! With David Wolfe, Forbes.com contributors are regarded as self-published sources, as they are more akin to bloggers with almost no editorial oversight. Thus, per WP:BLPSPS, we can't use articles by Forbes contributors to source material about living people. It tends to catch editors out, as the Forbes name would suggest that it is reliable, but the contributors are different and separate to their staff. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to a WP article verifying your claim. RobP (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP lists Frobes.com as "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources" - there have been numerous discussions about this on WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. As there is minimal to no oversight of Forbes.com contributor posts, and as they post directly, it is seen as self published, and cannot be used as sources of material about a living person other than the author. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also brought this issue up on the David Wolfe talk page here[7]. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

I criticized you at AN3[8], you are not the subject of the report, but I still think you should know. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: I have to say that the discussion in the link you provided is not easy to follow, and I see no reference to me at all. What was I accused of doing? RobP (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the diffs I linked in my last comment[9] was you making an unexplained revert. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the accidental rollback

Apologies for the accidental rollback rather than a regular revert, but please see my explanation for the latter here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Yea. I screwed it up as coincidentally the ranking was the same number as the reported age. Was notified by the owner that cat is alive, but I realize this isn't a sufficient RS. Trying to get a good ref.RobP (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in that case, I was confused too. I thought you had actually changed the reported age, but now that I look again, I see what happened! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Biddle (Round 2)

I'm not convinced addition of the NYT article by itself is enough of a difference to change people's minds. Looking over the old AfD, I see a few felt the article was self-promotional. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon with both good and bad articles at AfD: if it reads like an admiring writer milked every source for trivial details, people will vote against it on the basis that the editor is probably trying to promote someone or something, even though it is adequately sourced. If you would consent to let me take a hatchet to your draft article, I might be able to trim and copyedit enough to mitigate the impression of promotion. You could always revert to your old version if you disagree with my edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Go for it! RobP (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took it as far as I can go today. Although I may fix typos and tweak a little later tonight. Understatement is the key to successful encyclopedic bio writing. Unless your subject is someone who has 10 books written about them, better to go with unadorned facts. Note that I cut out all the personal trivia; things like the first time he met Randi, or the first time he went to a psychic, or his favorite color (kidding). Also, I only gave a cursory look to the references, so I can't guarantee they're bulletproof. You should cite the highest quality sources you have, and be very stingy with selfpub and fringe sources, avoiding them if you can. And I haven't closely examined the bibliography. You may want to remove stuff published on GhostTheory etc. and keep only solid mainstream publishing.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Will take a deeper look tonight, but at a quick look-over I see you deleted the section I started for the NYT material and citation which I thought was critical to trying again at this time. Why?? RobP (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any cite to the NYT article, just the CSI article. But I will create and add the cite and see if any details from Kenny's paras are worth extracting for other sections.(BTW, showcasing the name of the publication in the article text, e.g. "...which was covered by The New York Times in February 2019. According to Jack Hitt..." comes off to reviewers as desperate to prove notability, 'Look! He was mentioned in the New York Times! By a writer! ) From my reading of the NYT story, the story is about Susan and her sting ops. Kenny and wife appear as details, so it's not the critical difference that's going to put you over the top in terms of changing reviewers minds about notability. The bigger problem was too much fancruft, which made the article appear fawning rather than encyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added details from the NYT magazine story that were relevant. I think that's about all we can realistically squeeze from it. Yes, it's cute that he wears a Thor's Hammer charm. But please don't include that unless you want the article to be compared to something found in Tiger Beat ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you are funny... I had just pasted in all the text from the NYT article about Kenny as a temp thing to have it all there to figure out what to use! Def not the hammer.
Update: read it over in detail and had to change just a few things, mostly concerning the description of Biddle's role in the sting. Thanks so much. You did an amazing job! Now the problem of getting it republished. I started to do that and ran into a wall. It seems because of the AfD there is a problematic process to make it live, that needs to involve the admin who closed the AfD. Trouble is he is retired! Amazingly, the process does NOT cover this scenario, so I asked what to do at the Teahouse[10]. RobP (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Hope it will be reconsidered. BTW, I never read the *entire* DRV discussion until just now. Weird. And a lot of michegas about possible WP:SPA votes. Maybe that’s why recreation is protected [[11]]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely seemed unfair. I was so upset at how that went down. Especially because I could never get the actual points of my arguments about notability (which were seconded by some others) answered by the Delete voters. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Well I have resubmitted it - hopefully correctly. The procedure description is anything but clear. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward

Just wanted to explain more about this revert. Totally agree with your wording, in substance, but the placement there is problematic, in that the editing out of misses wasn't a part of the portrayal of the show, nor does it belong as part of the official premise of the show, nor is it supported by the citation there, which is just to the show itself. It's true that the episodes did contain all kinds of supportive testimonies from audience members interspersed between segments. That said, I do see the editing criticism down in the skepticism section; if you have even more material, it'd be great to add it down there with the source(s). Grandpallama (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gua sha

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gua sha. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain

Could you explain what you meant here? It does not seem like a truthful request to me. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was attempting - as I said in my original edit today - to put the article back to its state of Feb 17th, so that (as I said) it could be incrementally improved again with consensus. After Feb 17th, Littleghostboo made edits that to me looked like Littleghostboo was removing valid skeptical content (Science-Based Medicine, etc). But it was hard to see between Littleghostboo and your edits what was going on. It looked to me that you were supporting Littleghostboo in this effort. Though I do not agree with your approach, I see now you were not. RobP (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: I was just poking around to attempt to find instructions on how to notify admins that I'd like the the lock lifted, and I can find no instructions on how to do that. Any ideas? RobP (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the article was protected at THERIGHTVERSION is there any point in unprotection when it will be automatically unprotected in a week? If you still want to unprotect, request at RFPP. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Rp2006/sandbox/Deconverted

Hello, Rp2006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Deconverted".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canine cancer detection

My mistake, read that way too quickly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
243 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Vertebral subluxation (talk) Add sources
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Sol Invictus - ANU (talk) Add sources
215 Quality: High, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: GA Foeticide (talk) Add sources
54 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Uell Stanley Andersen (talk) Add sources
64 Quality: High, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: GA Maria Konnikova (talk) Add sources
1,308 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Hybrid vehicle (talk) Add sources
2,176 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Intersectionality (talk) Cleanup
1,120 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Q (Star Trek) (talk) Cleanup
1,090 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Oncology (talk) Cleanup
156 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA Epstein–Barr virus infection (talk) Expand
1,046 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (talk) Expand
60 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Déjà Q (talk) Expand
134 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Diksha (talk) Unencyclopaedic
507 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Eckankar (talk) Unencyclopaedic
477 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Astrological age (talk) Unencyclopaedic
366 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Faith healing (talk) Merge
45 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Mind–body interventions (talk) Merge
68 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Dance in ancient Egypt (talk) Merge
270 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Andrew Weil (talk) Wikify
788 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Daniel Ortega (talk) Wikify
10 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start 2001 Ouro Preto Murder Case (talk) Orphan
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Biological terrain assessment (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start Paul Lieberman (talk) Orphan
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Naitaba (talk) Stub
39 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub United States Naval Support Detachment, São Paulo (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (talk) Stub
31 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Michael A. Epstein (talk) Stub
96 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub The Magic (book) (talk) Stub
5 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Katarchic astrology (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkei's Top Ten Most Excellent Companies in Japan

Hey, it didn't occur to me to ping you, but I would sincerely urge you to retract your nomination here and close the nomination as speedy keep. There's no realistic way the article is going to get deleted at this point, and it just makes you look like a better Wikipedian if you can admit a mistake. The kind of people who persistently double down when it's been pointed out that they are wrong are just the worst kind of people, who really should not be allowed edit Wikipedia at all, and yet a surprising proportion of the community (at least the ones active on several high-traffic fora I could mention) appear to be those kind of people. Taking this opportunity to say "I'm not one of them" would mean you get to come out on top even though your nomination failed, rather than just allowing the nomination to run a week and failing anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Course in Miracles

hi...can you please tell me why you reverted my edit? You didn't leave any explanation. Thanks.Justbean (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Justbean: Hi. It was a long string of changes all done in one big edit, and a quick review showed at least some of it was VERY problematic. I had no time to look at each part individually, so did a global undo. Some of the most problematic issues were that you added material without citations, including the long addition to the end of the Origins section. As well as this tabloid-like material: "...and Schucman was married, but was rumored to have been in love with Thetford, who was believed to have been gay." RobP (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rp2006: Thanks for the reply! And for the clarity :) I thought I cited everything...will go back and take a look. Most of the info came from the LA Times. The other source was People Magazine...I've seen it used as a source a lot, didn't think it'd be an issue. Will take another look. Again...thanks!Justbean (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Netflix miniseries Unorthodox was inspired by Deborah Feldman's memoir Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lee Vilenski: Can you answer this question?

Draft: Kabir Helminski

Hi there. I wonder if you could help me by reviewing the above draft. It has been declined under WP:NPOV, but when I asked the administrator who declined it if they could point to a particular sentence or passage that violated the principle of neutrality, they admitted they couldn't point to one. They did however say that what concerns them is that I might be leaving out pertinent information because of my declared link to the subject of the piece. The only advice they could offer was to suggest I seek guidance from somebody on WikiProject Religion. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give me your thoughts about what might be done to this draft to make it acceptable. Many thanks!Danthedervish (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of your articles

Hi there, Rp2006. As you've shown interest in some of my recent article assessments, I thought I would look at some of your own work. I must say your detailed, well researched biographies are pretty impressive. As you will see, I've upgraded those deserving better ratings. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stokes

Thanks for the change to 'self-proclaimed'. You're right. It's better - and more accurate. However, it clashes with the word 'claimed' which I use just before it. I might alter that, just to make it less....you know. If you get there first, feel free. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed claimed to a synonym so it will read better. RobP (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stokes, Take 2.

Good job. No need for an edit block, though. I think we're on the same side here. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Thomas Ward page

I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on the Joseph Ward page. I really appreciated it. Not sure if I'm supposed to message you here, but wasn't sure how else to do it. Should I 'thank' you on each line of the corrections? Or should I only thank you once for everything?

I'm still working on your suggestions for the page... and also waiting to see if I get any other suggestions from the Cabal. jepercival (talk) (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome. BTW, you could have done that on a talk page. (You can make a Talk page even for a user page in a sandbox.) You notify an editor as follows: @Jane Percival: yada yada... (Look at the code in edit mode.)
Woah. somebody mentioned the Cabal. There Is No Cabal. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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 this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for article expansion support

Hi, Greetings,I was looking for some article expansion support in following areas.

Please do have a look at upcoming articles, if any of above topics interest you, then pl. do contribute towards expansion of the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
WikiProject Notification
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members.
The Downlink project page
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020.

Thanks, Terasail [Talk]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum biology

In case you still are interested in that article, I recently replied to you at Talk:Quantum biology. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks. Will take a look and respond if appropriate. RobP (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Canine cancer detection has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Turner page

Hi there, I was wondering what your thinking is about the flags on this article? It would be helpful if you added your thoughts to the talk page. I am trying to fix it up and looking for as much sensible advice as possible.Realitylink (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look here and saw nothing obvious. RobP (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink

We don’t in-line American per wp:overlink. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F864:46D5:206E:4DA0 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Simone Gold

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simone Gold, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Simone Gold), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

@Maile66: Hey... I created the page for America's Frontline Doctors, the org started by Gold, but not the Gold article. I did edit it, but that's the extent of my involvement. So I am curious as to why I got this DYK notification. @Kmburke5: was the original editor. RobP (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold drew 10,996 page views (916 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: As noted directly above, I had little to do with this page. Can you explain why I was notified and then congratulated? RobP (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK submission template (Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold) identified you as one of the articles creators. That is why you received the two notifications. I apologize for any inconvenience. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

If you are reverting someone to put your edit back on an article a second time, I would generally recommend checking the article's talk page to see their comments there before performing the revert, as opposed to after (as you have done on Craig Hamilton-Parker). jp×g 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

flat earty

sorry about the typos--I'll redo it when I've got some sleep -- but Thanks for notifying me. I need people to notice when I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chupacabra

I'm not doubting you but could you add a note of explanation on the talk page? Madelyne Tolentino didn't claim to see the creature until August. The first reports were in March. Again, not arguing just asking for clarification Wickedjacob (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

retracted I understand my confusion now. reports of mutilation vs. report of seeing the creature. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dybbuk box

Would you mind if I made some edits to the article that I recommended at the AfD? Not sure when I'll get to it, but thought I'd ask. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: Of course not. Thanks for asking! RobP (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki communications

Did you contact Gronk Oz and ask them to restore your talk page trolling? It seems your accounts interact so often that it looks like there's off-wiki coordination going on [12]]. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I and @Gronk Oz: are members of a team of editors, well known on WP, that monitor and improve pages concerning scientific and skeptical subjects. I reconstructed the Havana Syndrome page long ago (before it had this name) when this all started and my team knows that. We generally "watch" the pages worked by the others on the team. And BTW - you are needlessly insulting by calling my valid contributions trolling. I am done with you. RobP (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what I asked. I asked, specifically, if you sent out a request for him (or one of your WP:CRONYs generally) to revert that. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I did not. I was about to do it and he did it first. You were totally out of line in deleting that Talk comment. Anyone but you would see that.RobP (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gronk Oz has never edited that article, but he has participated in the consensus process on that talk page, in support of your positions. [13], [14]. Do you understand that this is Meat Puppetry? Geogene (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that you can watch a page w/o having edited it? I have plenty in my watchlist like that. Report me or shut up. RobP (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to. One more thing though -- can you confirm that DolyaIskrina, who has been involved on that talk page consensus process as well, is part of your off-wiki POV editing team also? I have enough evidence from editor interaction that that's probably the case. Geogene (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really are something else. I may have to report you for harassment. But for the record - I do not recognize that ID, @DolyaIskrina:. Is anyone who makes an edit you disagree with now on your enemy list? RobP (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of WikiProject Skepticism which includes this article. I regularly look through the articles there, looking for places to contribute. In this case, I also had this article on my watchlist after the subject was covered in a podcast I follow, the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. RobP absolutely did not contact me, either on Wikipedia or off, to ask me to restore his contributions. That was completely my own initiative, as the appropriate response to your deleting his talk comment. If there are occasions where I have agreed with RobP, that should hardly come as a surprise when we are debating matters of evidence.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the team of editors, well known on WP that RobP said you are a member of? Geogene (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&oldid=1026410367"