User talk:RobinHood70/Archive

Diablo II version history

Hi,

Just to let you know that I've restored the version history table. This kind of thing is exactly the sort of real-world information which our video game articles need more of. Please add detail to it if you get a chance! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on user

Hi Rob, some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments from outside are good. Here is the guidelines for an RfC when you are interested at that [1]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Emailed you

Just to let you know I've replied to your email (in case it gets eaten by your spam filter again). --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, got it fine this time. Don't know why I didn't last time. Will respond probably tomorrow, but maybe later tonight. --Rob (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you Rob i have liked your comments, I know people do not like me at CFS. You have said about my reversions, it is to much some times i am sorry. I say, just a verified information from a good reveiw, it is not good that other people delete that bc they do not agree with the conclusion. That is why I revert, there is a group of editors at CFS articles, they have had ownership before and they try delete all not "physical" causes and make article a speculation on physical causes. The medical opinion, all causes are speculation and not much proof for any, and psych causes are part of the speculation, they should not censor that part. I say group, i do not mean it is a conspiracy i mean they have been at article long and work together and accuse me on their talk pages, they are saying now I am sock of Guido, some edit only CFS and usually I am only editor who stop them to delete verified MEDRS. RetroS1mone talk 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the article Talk page, liking or disliking you or your statements has no bearing on anything I add, remove, or revert (though in fact, I've done very little editing on any Wikipedia article recently, and nothing major on any CFS-related article). As you can see in my user page, I'm a Patroller on another very large Wiki, and as such, I know enough to check my feelings at the door when making any edits.

I agree 100% that psychological or psychiatric causes can account, or partially account, for some cases of CFS. And there certainly is research by some that gives some credence to that possibility. Given that, it most certainly belongs in any discussion of CFS. But contrary to your claims, I haven't seen any attempt to excise all psychological factors from the page, only to make it more balanced, reflecting the large majority of modern research and to remove possibly-flawed sources that may not meet WP:MEDRS standards (again, as I said, I haven't researched that, so I leave that to others to decide). --Rob (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob I am sorry i called you tendentious but i get angry bc you called me tendentious and revert my edits. I am trying, to meet MEDRS.

Also why do you say "pro organic" that is a bias word and it is not medical consensus, medical consensus is, psychological disorders are usually organic, some CFS patients object on psych factors and use words like pro organic and pych mafia bc they have non medical opinion of psychology and psychiatry to be emberassing and not real. Pls we should do MEDRS. Thx RetroS1mone talk 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, if you look at the characteristics of problem editors and your history of edits and reversions on CFS-related pages, I think you'll understand why many people see you that way and refer to your edits as tendentious. As for your second point, I've never used the term "pro-organic" in my life, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. --Rob (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, please stop misrepresenting other editors as some group with the same opinions and motives who are purposely working against you and Wikipedia. You said, "they are saying now I am sock of Guido". Although it was understandable why you thought Sam accused you of being Guido, Sam has since cleared up the confusion. Other editors explicitly stated that they don't believe you are Guido. There was no "they" and there is no "cabal". - Tekaphor (TALK) 13:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious??

"her English obviously isn't great there" and you guys say you do not call me stupid. No you do not say stupid in many words, it is the implication from I do not know evidence based medicine and I do not know a review, that is Sam Weller, and "pfffft" at my writing, that is Tekaphor, and you about my English. When obvious pls do not say it. I am trying, OK??

Pls read WP:NLT, I am tired from this legal threat, i do not say just one word from the RS Guardian. RetroS1mone talk 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not in any way calling you stupid. Your English isn't great, that's a fact. While I speak French, my French isn't great, that's also a fact. I in no way intended any offence by that statement, it was only a lead-in to the fact that I had to interpret what you meant and that I wasn't sure if that was correct. In no way did I imply that you didn't know evidence-based medicine, all I said was "her English obviously isn't great".

As for WP:NLT, as I said elsewhere, it does not apply here. There is no legal threat being made against you at all. The article, however, could be deemed by Malcolm Hooper to be libellous, and since he could conceivably sue Wikipedia based on the content of the article, that section must be removed, even in contravention of WP:3RR as detailed here and here. --Rob (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPLT. I will ask at the BLP notice. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see even WP:NPLT applying here, because the statements are not about me in any way, therefore I couldn't pursue legal action or even threaten to. Nevertheless, if anything I've said has given you that impression, I apologize, as it certainly was not intended that way. --Rob (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx Rob we do have a different interpretation, i see what you are saying now tho, i am thinking about it. RetroS1mone talk 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No RetroS1mone, I said "pffft" at the editing summary you gave, which edited my text on grounds of being "wordy" (which I said was "ridiculous, remember?). Your English seems to have been good in the past, now it often seems disjointed. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Underhanded?

Us, we, underhanded, OK i am underhanded bc I do not inform you and Tekaphor and Ward20 and Sam Weller about reliable source noticeboard, but it is only Sam Weller you said so why do you say we and us? That is why I say tag team. I am trying AGF, pls help explain me why. RetroS1mone talk 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who grouped us together as "involved editors", that's why I use the term "we" and "us". You didn't inform anybody about the RS request as far as I can tell, which was distinctly "underhanded". You have been told again and again that there is no "cabal" or "team" or anything of that sort. There certainly are a lot of editors who object to your edits, your tone, and your attempts to insert questionable material into CFS articles, though...even the pro-psychological ones. We too are trying to assume good faith, but you're making it awfully difficult when you do things without discussing it with other editors, insert multiple reversions from weeks apart into one edit, insert unrelated material about hypochondriasis into a CFS article, and on and on. --Rob (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Rob [2] is the BLPN, pls you can leave your comments, thx. RetroS1mone talk 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'll have a look at it later today, as I'm in the middle of something else right now. --Rob (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK that is great, i think we will resolve. RetroS1mone talk 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As it turned out, I was able to look at it immediately. Hopefully others will comment and give us some guidance on this. --Rob (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

your threat and "digs"

OK Rob, you threatened me "Just remember what they warn you about on the RfC page: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."" at my talk, that is a threat. Duh, i just said i am welcome to a ANI or RfC bc i do not have any thing for hiding. You like to say the "obvious" things that are not needing said, right, bc it is not necessary and it will get a reaction from me?

You are very good with words, so you can say "obvious" things about my language and you make a great explaination later, when it is obvious pls do not say it that is hurtful and mean, but later you can make a nice excuse, o i just meant i had to interpret it, Pls rob, i had friends look at what I said and you said, it was obvious to any person, you were making fun of me. You and Sam and Tek and WArd, it is de-humanize me and threaten me and make nice little comments to get me angry, they call it "digs" it is not an excuse, pls stop.

SPA editor is a person that has most of their edits in one area, you edit CFS relatives most, some video games. Do you say, CFS is not your focussing on Wiki? I have alot of edits in CFS relatives, also in Eastern Europe, some animals, Morgellons disease, Lyme disease, HIV, biographies. You said you are a CFS patient, pls think, you can have a bias you do not realize and i think it is affecting how you treat me and the articles. My opinion only, pls think on it. RetroS1mone talk 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You continuously read things into peoples' statements that just aren't there, RetroS1mone. I will be (and was being) very honest: I don't think an RfC discussion would go well for you. That's not a threat, it's what I believe, and my statement was a direct quotation of the RfC page. Maybe I'm wrong, but when even ScienceWatcher says there's a problem (he and I disagree on a lot of things), then I feel fairly confident that there's a problem.

I've told you before that there was nothing negative intended by my statement about your English skills. It was intended only to explain the fact that I had to interpret what you meant. You chose to take it as an insult and I explained before that that was not what I meant. In fact, I believe I even apologized...if not, I'm doing so here. I apologize if any offense was taken by my comment. As I said, my French is no better than your English. The difference in our approach is that because I know my French isn't very good, I choose not to edit French articles, and only on very rare occasions do I even read them.

And I know what an SPA is...as I said, before the recent content-dispute started (and another one back around the beginning of the year), I was very minimally involved in any CFS articles. If you look at my edits for the month of May, they are:

• 18:07, 25 May 2009 Frankie Goes to Hollywood ‎ (Various minor grammar fixes)
• 03:56, 25 May 2009 Chronic fatigue syndrome ‎ (Please provide a source, and stop edit-warring - see my comment on your discussion page.)
• 03:49, 25 May 2009 User talk:87.114.20.211 ‎ (Keep trying, just do it the right way!)
• 03:34, 25 May 2009 Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome ‎ (→Diagnosis: Reads better this way, I think.)
• 03:20, 25 May 2009 To Serve Man ‎ (→Appearance in other media: More touch-ups to make it read better; include proper punctuation.) (top)
• 03:19, 25 May 2009 To Serve Man ‎ (→Appearance in other media: Clarify that BG2 is a video game for the unfamiliar, expand name and linkify.)
• 16:40, 21 May 2009 Domperidone ‎ (→Gastrointestinal problems: Removed extraneous colon from previous C&P'd version of older page.)
• 16:38, 21 May 2009 Domperidone ‎ (→Uses: Re-integrating Parkinson's section into GI section, as it does not treat Parkinson's, it's only used to counter the side-effect of Parkinsons drugs.)
• 16:24, 21 May 2009 Domperidone ‎ (→Uses: Combined GI/anti-emetic sections, since anti-emetic action is, by definition, for nausea and vomiting mentioned in GI section.)
• 16:04, 17 May 2009 Dermatitis herpetiformis ‎ (Change spelling of celiac to match coeliac article.)
• 15:16, 17 May 2009 Capital Pride (Ottawa) ‎ (Remove stub tags...this is a reasonably-sized article at this point) (top)
• 15:14, 17 May 2009 Capital Pride (Ottawa) ‎ (→The Capital Pride Historical Gallery: Grammar fixes (lower-case for non-title parade/street party), add a couple of links.)
• 15:05, 17 May 2009 Capital Pride (Ottawa) ‎ (→The History of Pride in Ottawa: Consistent hyphens in Ottawa–Gatineau and unlinkified section mention of Bank Street in same section.)
• 15:01, 17 May 2009 Capital Pride (Ottawa) ‎ (→Capital Pride's Mission: unlinkify second mention in section)
• 00:35, 12 May 2009 Diablo II ‎ (Re-inserting unexplained category deletion)
• 22:46, 8 May 2009 Doxycycline ‎ (Moved image to allow page to flow better)
• 21:59, 8 May 2009 International Taekwondo Federation ‎ (→Taekwon-Do tenets: Grammar)
• 14:45, 4 May 2009 Syndemic ‎ (Remove unnecessary space.) (top)
• 14:21, 4 May 2009 1976 swine flu outbreak ‎ (Un-linkify; previously linked in same section)
• 13:24, 4 May 2009 Doxycycline ‎ (→Cautions and side effects: Incorrect statement.)
• 14:55, 1 May 2009 Doxycycline ‎ (→Antibacterial: grammar)
• 14:54, 1 May 2009 Doxycycline ‎ (→Antibacterial: grammar)
• 01:35, 1 May 2009 Cystitis ‎ (→Symptoms: linkify similar conditions/symptoms)

So out of 23 edits in a month, 2 were CFS-related, and one of those was to revert unsourced pro-biological changes—the very camp you accuse me and others of making changes in support of; the other was a very minor wording change to make that particular paragraph read better.

If you go back even further, very few of my contributions have been to CFS articles. Even on CFS articles, almost none of them are content edits unless it was to revert something I felt wasn't supported by the sources or an edit that was made in spite of an ongoing consensus discussion. Most of my edits anywhere on Wikipedia are spelling and grammar edits because, as you point out, I'm very good with the English language. Between 24 June 2008 and 16 November 2008 (the next page of my contribution history when filtered to May 2009 and before), I count 6 out of 50 edits that were CFS related - 5 of them grammar-related.

So I'm sure you can understand why I consider it a personal attack when you refer to me as an SPA editor. --Rob (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as to the accusations that my having CFS makes me somehow treat you differently, I would have to disagree. Your actions and your attitude, however, most certainly have made me treat you differently, as I've noted throughout the various user and article talk pages. As I've noted before, ScienceWatcher and I also disagree about a number of things. I treat him no different than any other editor on this board, and as you've seen, we're able to get along just fine and respect each others' opinions. While he has admitted on Wikipedia that he too once had CFS, but got over it with time, we nevertheless have very different views on how CFS came into our lives and how it will leave. Do I have an opinion about what I believe my CFS is caused by? Yes, absolutely! But I also believe SW when he talks about what he believes his was caused by. We still have some major disagreements about how CFS works and what causes it. But we can discuss them respectfully rather than using edit-warring, accusations, and disparagment.

And whether you believe it or not, I do believe that for some cases, the cause of CFS is either entirely psychological or at least that it is a contributing factor. That's why I don't understand your belief that I or anybody else is trying to sensor psychological points from the article. I can't speak for others, but I know I'm certainly not! The Prins 2006 source, however, may be of concern. As I've said before, I'm leaving that issue up to the people who have looked into it...it's not something that really concerns me one way or the other, as long as any potential concerns about the source are noted appropriately or balanced by other viewpoints. --Rob (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob I apologize i called you a SPA editor, it was not fair i did let many emotions control me and it was not right, i am sorry. W/ the recent edits i think you are more then half in CFS and CFS talk and the big dispute about me but before you edit many articles, i am sorry. When i am more cool i try to explain my position to you, why i have been so upset, i do not mean it is an excuse for my saying about you a SPA. RetroS1mone talk 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, apology accepted. And yes, many of my recent edits have been to CFS-related articles, simply because they are, obviously, of interest to me, and there's been a lot of activity lately. Once it dies down, I'm sure my usual pattern from before the beginning of June will re-emerge. I really do tend to hop around Wikipedia to the weirdest places sometimes, and I correct as I go, usually. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

talk page harrassment

I say many times, you have accusation of me, pls accuse me. When you do not have specific accusation, pls do not use my talk page to harrass me. I ask, where i am using the COI template wrong?? I took it OFF from David Sheffield Bell. I delete your harrassing false accusation. RetroS1mone talk 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have taken it off of the DSB page, but you used it there, and I believe one or two other places as well. My intent was only to inform you of the proper procedure. Please do not again accuse me of harassment, or I will escalate the matter to an ANI. --Rob (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CFS papers

I've just emailed them to you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks SW! --Rob (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your views and time regarding the issue I was involved with on the Wikiquette alerts page. I've learned one very important thing and that's be very careful on edits and edit summaries to avoid a possible misunderstanding Shinerunner (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to have tried to help out, though I see now it's been archived with a "dead horse" description. --Rob (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man

Hi RobinHood, in response to RetroS1mone's recent edits, thankyou for ...

• reverting [3] a "POV edit" [4]
• restoring/rewording [5] the inappropriate removal of MEDRS text on false grounds of not applying to childhood when it actually does [6] (plus your rewording was an improvement on the original)
• reverting [7] an edit that had removed a whole bunch of text on false grounds of "not being MEDRS" [8] (an even poorer excuse given that it's about "controversies")

_Tekaphor (TALK) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Tek. I prefer not to bulk-revert RetroS1mone's (or anybody else's) edits, as there's often some very legitimate concerns brought up, so where I can, I try to address any concerns mentioned. In some cases, though, like the last one you mentioned, there's just too much that gets caught by the reversion with no significant explanation of what the concerns are, so I just revert the whole edit. --Rob (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic question

Hi Rob,

Question for you on webhosting if you have any idea. How much would you expect to pay for web hosting a website similar in size to PatientsLikeMe? Their traffic is about 100,000/mo. Thanks, Ward20 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a clue, personally, but my partner may have a better idea. I'll try to remember to ask him when he gets home and hopefully get back to you tomorrow. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out Yahoo Small Business web hosting [9]. Works out to be roughly $10 per month (depends on the payment plan). The MySQL and PHP services aren't exactly up to date though (you can't run MediaWiki version 1.7 or above on it, for example). - Tekaphor (TALK) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have gotten other feedback too. It's likely not expensive as I thought. Ward20 (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's my partner's response to the question. He does a little web-hosting himself, so he's definitely more in the know than I am. Note that we're in Canada and these prices are in Canadian dollars...not sure where you are, Ward20.

“ Hosting prices are based on:

1. Storage capacity (how many MB of disk space your site + email + logs etc. take up)
2. Monthly bandwidth (including uploads, downloads, emails, and every page viewed)
3. Quality/reliability of service.

The PatientLikeMe.com site has no multimedia content (at a quick glance) and has few graphics, so not a huge bandwidth hog. I would guess hosting could be anywhere from $25/month for discount hosting to $100+/month for something more high-end. In addtion you would have your domain registration costs, $12-20/year depending on your registrar and any bulk discounts.

I might have the server resources for something like this, would have to check.

”

Thank you very much Rob!!

You maintained my talk page when the person was attacking me! I am very grateful for it. Thx X 1000! RetroS1mone talk 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND...or not

Rob can you pls explain me why you are following me around Wikipedia, like Jamie Doran article you never edit before. Ward20 and Sam Weller were doing it and now you to, i will have to think may be a report soon. Thx. RetroS1mone talk 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember the last time I looked at your User Contributions list. The only reason I've ever "followed you around" is because you or someone else mentioned an article in a discussion somewhere. In this case, it turns out to be the same reason as I've mentioned before: because your user page is on my Watchlist from recent communications and since I read all the diffs of pages on my Watchlist, I saw the recent message from Biggerpicture. I was curious to see what it was all about, so I had a look and while I was at the page in question, I made some minor improvements to the existing text, since there were some fairly obvious problems. I also fact-checked one of the easier edits to prove or disprove (the one about "partly upheld"). As I also mentioned before, I'm currently tracking other users' talk pages for one reason or another and occasionally follow links in discussions they have that aren't related to any articles I was previously working on as well.

As to the accusation of WP:HOUNDing, I think you should re-read that section. I was in no way disruptive or confrontational, there was no tendentious editing, nor were there any personal attacks. My edits were totally benign and in the one case where I commented on a minor dispute between you and Biggerpicture, it was something readily verified in the source cited.

To be perfectly honest, I think you've got some excellent points about the article, and the it could certainly benefit from additional fact-checking, a more encyclopedic tone in places, and overall being made less of a soapbox. --RobinHood70 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, RobinHood70. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 02:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Hi, Thanks for taking the time to contribute your opinion on the dispute I'm having with RetroS1mone. I have added my endorsement to the RFC/RetroS1mone page. I have also added a couple of other points. I hope my contributions have been appropriate and sufficient. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Best wishes, Biggerpicture (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New Celiac Article

Hi RobinHood70,

I saw that you’re a frequent editor of the Coeliac disease article and on a gluten free diet, so I thought you might be interested in helping me write an article on a new celiac disease diagnostic test. My friend follows a strict gluten free diet because she is a self-diagnosed Celiac, which got me interested in learning more about celiac disease. I came across a relatively new celiac test that tests your saliva for the genes that predispose you to the disease. The test is called MyCeliacID and it’s an at home test that's reasonably priced. I believe that it deserves an article on Wikipedia, but I’ve had my article deleted twice already, so I’m looking for help.

I’ve done a significant rewrite of the article and would love your help/feedback on it.

Please let me know if you interested in working on this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGOeditor (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to help out in some way, though I mostly do copyediting on Wikipedia. I'd be interested to know why the article was deleted. I suspect it probably doesn't merit full-article status on its own, but may belong under "treatments" in the Coeliac article itself. Also be careful that it doesn't sound promotional (words like "reasonably priced", for example), as that's almost certain to get it deleted as a POV article. So think about whether or not you have enough material and notability for an article of its own, and whether it's an article or a section in Coeliac, if you want someone to have a look over it for grammar, spelling, formatting, etc., I'll be happy to help out with that. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to post the rewritten article in my talk page sometime this coming week, and I'll let you know when I do to get your feedback. I'm starting to agree with you that the MyCeliacID possibly does not warrant a full article yet because it lacks notability. That may just mean that I need to wait for more press to cover MyCeliacID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGOeditor (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've posted my rewritten MyCeliacID article on my talk page. When you have a chance you can please give me some feedback. Thanks.(EGOeditor (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Please move the article into an "sandbox page." I've only used a sandbox while going through the tutorials. I appreciate any comments you may have.--EGOeditor (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Viral load Ureaplasma urealyticum Philips Paladin Serology Clawhammer AIDS Museum Post-exposure prophylaxis Polyp (medicine) Integrase Edge GI Cocktail Ergocalciferol Opportunistic infection Provirus Myalgia Pospiviroidae Home appliance Chronophilia

Cleanup CDC Classification System for HIV Infection HIV test Rectum Merge Phosphorylation Timeline of AIDS Generations (book) Add Sources The Odyssey (album) AIDS pandemic Malaise Wikify Carnitine Emancipation of minors Humiliation Expand Megumi Hayashibara Hepatocellular carcinoma Biopsy

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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Papers

If you need PMID 19127706, just shoot me an email and leave a note. Sam Weller (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Toy Soldiers

Ok, that looks weird. I appreciate your helping with the Doctor Steel page, but I noticed that you changed most of the references of Nurses, Scouts and Toy Soldiers to lower case (nurses, scouts, toy soldiers). That looks kind of weird (especially the Toy Soldier one); we rarely see them uncapitalized in the Army because they are Regimental titles, not descriptors. Kind of like you wouldn't call the U.S. Marines 'the marines'. It's always 'the Marines'. Changing the capitalization changes the meaning of the word. A marine being something relating to the sea; a Marine being a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Uncapitalizing them, i.e. 'toy soldiers', makes it sound like we're pretending to be plastic army men or something, it just sounds weird. To me, anyway. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point - I sort of wondered that myself, but I was thinking it was probably just a common mistake like how people often capitalize "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" (another article I work on a lot), when it's really no different in that sense than cancer, the common cold, etc., which are never capitalized. I'll see if I can find any backup one way or the other and if I do, I'll change it (or not) appropriately. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(Likewise the Nurses aren't actually 'nurses', as having formal training in medicine isn't a requirement to join the Regiment.) Thanks for taking a second look at it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're right, so I reverted those changes. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fake admin?

Is SithToby an admin here? Could you check on this for me? I noticed he posted - and VOTED - in the Deletion thread, but then I got a red flag in my head because the link to his user page was red. I looked in the list of Wikipedia admins and didn't see his name there either. As much as I want to see this article succeed, I don't want to see it succeed by fraud, and I don't want any fakers poisoning the water. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can guarantee he's not an Admin, as the only post he's ever made has been in that thread. You don't have to be an admin to vote on an Article for Deletion, though. Regular editors have equal votes to admins in almost anything on Wikipedia. It is a little concerning that a user is voting when that's his only edit, but it's not entirely unheard of, since he could have been editing anonymously (or not editing at all) up until now and only made an account because it was a more significant contribution. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have corrected himself. :) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed media attention section?

Was it your intention to remove the entire "media attention" section on the Doctor Steel article? Or was that done in error? Because now you've removed pretty much all of the argument that could be made for Dr. Steel being notable (which is what I was trying to establish, that he was noteworthy and therefore worthy of having a Wikipedia entry). Gone is his appearance on Leno, MTV, Steampunk Magazine, everything. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As an argument for his notability, it's fine as is, and you may want to quote it in the AfD, but as an actual encyclopedic entry, it's not noteworthy as written. It might be something to summarize as "he has appeared on a, b, and c", but that's probably about it...at least in my opinion. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I mentioned my reasoning on the talk page. You may want to present your reasoning there and we'll see what other people think. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole argument for having the article included in Wikipedia, the whole discussion going on in AfD, is built upon Dr. Steel's notability as an iconic example of the steampunk genre. Removing this section removes all the references supporting that conclusion. It's like going to court and having the evidence removed before the jury reaches its verdict. Perhaps we can leave it in until the AfD discussion is finalized one way or the other? If Wikipedia doesn't think it works in an encyclopedic entry, that's fine with me, but at the present time, we're trying to establish whether he does deserve one, and this is a large part of the argument.
Or else I'll put a separate section in the AfD with those references, so that those trying to determine whether he is notable or not can peruse them? Otherwise the entire argument falls flat without any supporting references. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

See my reply on the talk page. I think either way should be fine. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit

Thanks a lot for copyediting the article! I left a couple comments on the talk. Care to respond? upstateNYer 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the article is at GAN; you've already done most of the hard work. Care to finish the job? No obligation of course, but since you've come this far... upstateNYer 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the specifics at the article talk page. Since I'm now an "involved" editor, I won't vote at the GAN page, but I'll definitely keep an eye on it and if I can help, I'll make any further changes that are identified. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

CFS discussion

Yeah, I agree it is going well off-topic. I suppose it is useful insofar as a lot of people have issues with CBT and similar taking up so much space in the article. But we probably need to either get on topic or just delete the whole thing.

Oh, and you might want to take a look at the treatment sub-article. I just noticed that Jagra has put a whole load of POV edits in there, and I've just spent half the morning trying to fix it. I'm guessing he'll try and put it all back in once he spots what I've done. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the various CFS articles are "exploding" right now, and I don't have the time to really go over them in detail. I'll do the "wiki-Gnome" thing where I notice problems, but that's all I can promise right now. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the treatment article is mostly okay now, although I haven't really had time to look through everything in detail yet - I was mostly just trying to fix the glaring problems. Basically Jagra put in a whole load of info for various treatments, but he twisted it all to make it sound as if the treatments were effective when they weren't. I removed a lot of info (no point having half a page of detail for a treatment that hasn't been proven to have any effect) and I put in the conclusions from BMJ clinical evidence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction of big to bit

Ha! Thanks. - Tekaphor (TALK) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it was a funny typo...changes the meaning entirely! —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your RFC. I did too. Ward20 (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that before I came here. I re-signed it; I'm not too worried about a few minutes difference between the real contribution and what the sig'll report. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ZNovember

Yes the UN have decided to rename the month, I thought everyone knew? Seriously, thanks for spotting that. Fix in progress. Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

XMRV details

RH, you asked on Sw's talk page about supporting studies. The info is covered at ~4min into the CFSAC: Dan Peterson XMRV Presentation (Part 2 of 11) on Youtube. The Science paper was done by the WPI team but the NCI and the Cleveland Clinics did initial validation XMRV/CFS tests using unrelated cohorts in their own labs. I'd type the data in here but I am not sure on the copyright situation, but across 3 samples totaling 45 patients tests, they got 32 positives. TerryE (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, also make sure to watch Coffin's presentation as well as Peterson's. He made the comment that XMRV was fairly easily detected in the PBMCs and blood plasma of CFS patients, (6min into 5 of 11) which is something that is quite difficult to do in the case of HIV positive patients. One comment that he later made was "the potential pathogenicity of this virus in a host that it can infect should not be underestimated" and this from the guy who used to the Director of the NCI's HIV Drug Resistance Program. TerryE (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had minor computer issues, so I haven't been on. Will respond to your e-mail and look at the above tomorrow. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"However" vs. "but"

"However" and "but" have roughly similar meanings but they aren't synonyms. They're different parts of speech: "but" is a conjunction while "however" is an adverb. "However" is also closer in meaning to "nevertheless" or "on the other hand" than it is to "but".

You wouldn't write, "Nellie went to the MLCC, on the other hand the store was out of rum", so you wouldn't write, "Nellie went to the MLCC, however the store was out of rum". "But" would be the more appropriate choice. On the other hand, the construction, "Nellie went to the MLCC; however, the store was out of rum", is grammatically correct, but it isn't good usage because the two clauses don't contrast. A better contrast would be, "Nellie went to the MLCC to buy rum; however, the brand she wanted was sold out".

According to the three UK style manuals I own, "however" is one of the most misused words in British English. One of them contains a rather extensive rant about the misuse of "however" to mean "but".

I actually do have to go buy that bottle of rum at the MLCC, so if you have any questions let me know and I'll answer them when I get back. --NellieBly (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814

Hello, and Happy Holidays! I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving this article a copy edit? I recently put Control through FA, and I would like to do the same for its follow-up. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a start on it, but I'm really tired, so I'll finish it up tomorrow. Overall, the writing is quite good — so far, I've only found the most minor issues. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. I appreciate it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done what I can do. You may want to get someone else to take a look at it who's better with adding original content. Right now, the bulk of the article is comprised of quotes from various magazines, reviewers, etc. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

HPA axis

Hi -- I would be happier with your edits if they were substantiated by secondary sources rather than primary research articles. The association between cortisol and depression is of course very well established -- the association with CFS is new to me and it would be nice to have evidence that there is more to support it than just a single research study. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I only moved the existing references from the old subsection where they'd been up into the text like references normally are now. I wasn't adding any new references to the article nor did I even look at them beyond a copy & paste. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Userbox alignment

Sure, please feel free to add it on. I have my settings on left-align by default and hadn't even noticed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoder (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just on my way to lunch now, but will add it in an hour or two. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, so much for "an hour or two"...totally forgot. I'll do it in just a moment. :) – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I undid your revert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diablo_III&action=historysubmit&diff=429874800&oldid=429851712

You reverted me for "Unexplained deletion." I have redone my edits, because I was removing uncited rumours. Wikipedia isn't a place for rumours or original research. Gosh, you guys pounce on IP editors for not reading the rules, then pounce on them even if they are editing within the rules... You can re-add the information if you find a citation for it. See WP:OR and WP:CITE for more information. Regards, a dynamic IP address editor. --81.98.50.67 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not entirely wrong to remove it, but you should have indicated why in your edit summary. I think I and others have been leaving the Q3 beta testing info there as it seems likely to be true, but we need something more official than a blog to actually say so. That's why the Citation Needed tag was there. Either way, I'm not terribly worried about it. The game will come out when it comes out...documenting the beta testing isn't really a big issue one way or the other. I've also added a topic on the Diablo III talk page if you wanted to comment there. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki being up to date

You are wrong saying that Wiki should not lead with new information. It should be kept up to date and not trot out the old stuff that has been proven to be wrong. People believe what they read on wiki and to have them believe erronous information is wrong. I know a lot about ITP and have kept up with the latest research and for you to delete what others more knowledgeable than you write about it is wrong. 87.194.81.2 (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the ITP page. – RobinHood70 ^talk 10:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I added some commentary on the above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Idiopathic_thrombocytopenic_purpura#Fatigue.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Melissa Venema

The article Melissa Venema has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Melissa Venema for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Venema 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/Melissa Venema 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Template Barnstar Award

		The Template Barnstar
		Thank you for your help in template coding!! Funandtrvl (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help! – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Celiac

You made this rule up yourself, right? And why are most of the ext links "specific" to my country then? Badanedwa (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an interpretation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically, points 1 and 13. Generally speaking, links should be very specific to the content, and only be linked if they mention something specific that would be inappropriate to include in an article, such as copyrighted text or excessively long material. Similarly, per WP:LINKFARM, the External Links section shouldn't include long lists of fairly generic links. If we included coliac.ie, then we'd also have to include celiac.com, celiac.ca, dzg-online.de and every other nation's celiac site, leading to a list of probably dozens if not hundreds of links. That's not what Wikipedia is for. As for the other links in that section, several are from the NIH and provide more technical detail about celiac and related subjects than it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to provide. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also WP:MEDMOS#External_links and WP:ELNO#EL7, which are about links of value only to people in limited geographic ranges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WAID...I was pretty sure I'd seen something like that before, but couldn't find it when I went looking in order to respond. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Open Relationship GA

I really can't thank you enough for your help on the project. You helped save my grade and I really appreciate it. You have honestly inspired me to be more involved in the Wiki community. Thanks again. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you want to stick around. I'm mostly what they call a WikiGnome, so you probably won't see anything major out of me, but hopefully I'll run into you around Wikipedia or on another wiki. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Open relationship

An article that you have been involved in editing, Open relationship has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mikovits

You're right. I misread the original sentence. Ward20 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I almost missed it myself, actually. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for work

Thanks for sorting out the references on the Wessely page - I always get muddled!YellowFratello (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I started off intending to do just yours, but then I saw how inconsistent they all were and ended up doing the whole lot. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender

An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture

Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lord Saltoun and Auchanachie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• on&query=102&field=20 Entry for Lord Salton and Auchanachie at Vaughan Williams Memorial Library])</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

CFS revert

I was working on documentation on the talk page prior to my intention to revert. Then I saw you had beaten me to it. Made it easy for me. Ward20 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at that one and my first thought was "Where do I begin?" Then I really looked at it and noticed that one of the authors was Jason, and I knew something was very very fishy. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On that same article, this revert of yours restored dashes in sentences between subject and verb. This is not a normal use of em dashes; so I took them out again. Let me know if you see some reason why dashes might be useful there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I glanced quickly, and the ones I looked at are at least common use (as an alternative to a colon). That said, looking more closely, the usage in the third bullet was just bizarre and changing all of them to read straight through without a colon or an em dash works better in any event. The ones in the "Clinical practice guidelines" paragraph were correct, though commas work there as well. Without the stronger break of an em dash, though, I found the structure unintuitive, so as you've probably seen by now, I switched it around. – RobinHood70 ^talk 05:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

CFS treatment page

If you have time, could you take another look at the discussion? Thx. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The elusive reason

All of us do it some time. G7 is what you were looking for - One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. In your own user space it would be U1. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the original author, though. I just noticed the error when looking at someone else's contributions. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When you get something left over after a move you've made, you are technically the creator of that leftover. The original history has gone to the other place - and what's left is your baby... Peridon (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I wasn't thinking of it in those terms. (I'm getting too used to being an admin on another wiki, apparently, and am forgetting the basics when I can't just go delete whatever I want. :P) – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Know the feeling. I get very frustrated when I can't see what was in something that's been deleted on another language WP, and I NEED to see it... Peridon (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

I laughed out loud when I saw the mistake I made @ Facade Pattern, Thanks for reverting it before that IP user. I hate being reverted by IP users . I can't believe I added "to" when I actually thought I was removing it.--Chamith (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I've done that sort of thing before, myself. It's easy to confuse the added/removed sections if you're not thinking about it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

You're correct. I made a mistake, now corrected. Thank you. (FetLife) deisenbe (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hello,

I am seeking help with my user page layout. I would like for the service awards ribbons under Wikipedia Service to be neatly aligned in rows of 4 horizontally instead of it being stacked vertically like it currently is. I've tried a few codes but nothing seemed to work. Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 04:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Omo. Try something like the following (but take out the colon before the {|):

Registered Editor	The Signator lv 2, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 8 days and completion of 50 edits	The Signator lv 3, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 15 days and completion of 100 edits	The Signator lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 23 days and completion of 150 edits
Novice Editor	Apprentice Editor
The Novice lv 2, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 1 month 15 days and completion of 400 edits	The Novice lv 3, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 2 months and completion of 600 edits	The Novice lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 2 months 15 days and completion of 800 edits

– Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, very helpful; exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 05:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I could help! – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 07:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

An old answer to a talk page question

Talk:Wizardry#Unlisted_title It's probably a little late, but wanted to let you know I answered your question here. Sudo edit this page (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't even remember asking the question at this point! :) Thanks for the response anyway. Hopefully it'll help someone. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 14:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Doxxing

Is Mediaite acceptable as RS? -- Callinus (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That's one of those in-between sites, as far as I can tell, where it's part blog, part news. I'm no expert on what constitutes a reliable source when it gets into that kind of grey area. I'd try searching for Mediate at RSN or if you don't find it there, you can ask.

That said, my larger issue is the question of what's important about this particular doxxing? For better or worse, doxxing does happen, and the fact that any given site was involved probably isn't notable unless FetLife is somehow clearly and directly at fault. So if, for instance, a member of the FetLife staff actively tied an account to a real person, that might be notable if there's clear proof. If FetLife just happens to be where a profile was found, which is what I got from a quick read of the article you linked to originally, there's nothing notable about that. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision to Age disparity in sexual relationships

What do u mean by "Partially withdrawn, so not a good source to cite" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships&oldid=prev&diff=701011948

See the article's talk page; I explained there. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)