User talk:Robot psychiatrist

Robot psychiatrist, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Robot psychiatrist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dudley H. Davis Center

The phrase may be added to the University of Vermont. It's not a Wikipedia page yet - unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you create such a sub-sub-stub and don't care to source it?Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to White people. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to White people. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Cheshire Medical Center) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cheshire Medical Center, Robot psychiatrist!

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

The article needs to be referenced.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Russia is in Eurasia

There is an Eurasian ideology, bot no hemispheric one.Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Costa Rica has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, you are decapitalizing the direction part of region names like Eastern Europe and Central America. These are not solely descriptive adjectives of cardinal directions. They are region titles and as such are proper nouns and should remain capitalized. Please stop decapitalizing them. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bernie Sanders. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nigel Farage

Hello Robot psychiatrist. I see that you recently made this edit to the Farage article. I agree that Kent should be changed, as Downe became part of the London Borough of Bromley two days before Farage was born, But, as there are no other villages called Downe, changing to "Downe, England" doesn’t seem wholly appropriate (unless you have found another place called Downe that you wish to disambiguate?) So it might be better to use London Borough of Bromley in the text. There have been a few recent discussions about what should be used in the info box for UK politicians' place of birth, but county (or borough) is usually given there also. You might want to open a discussion thread at Talk:Nigel Farage. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a whole long painful discussion history behind the hidden note that you removed at Jeremy Corbyn. You might want to actually read the Talk Page?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Karl Marx, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I now see you've done this repeatedly for example at Suzhou Creek. Please cease. See WP:RETAIN. The only legitimate reason to change from one national variety of English to another is in the case of WP:TIES AusLondonder (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Alfred C. Snider

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Alfred C. Snider. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Quebec nation?

Hi Robot psychiatrist, I note that twice you have referred to the province of Quebec as a "nation" in editing the Vermont article. I don't understand why, since the Quebec article refers to it as a province. It seems appropriate to me that the term "province" should be retained until and if there is a consensus in the Quebec article that it is somehow a nation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Yoshida Brothers. –Qpalzmmzlapq T C 13:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Good morning

Just wanted to give you a heads up, another editor has reverted a recent change you made to Social work. While the addition may or may not be factually correct, its standard practice to accompany substantive changes with supporting sources. If you would like to discuss the edit further, probably best to pop on over to Talk:Social work and see what everyone thinks. TimothyJosephWood 14:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Widr (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#Discussion and consensus--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, nearly all your edits are in violation of the manual of style. I reverted you yesterday for WP:U.S. but you did it again today. Also see WP:REFPUNCT. I hope you cease your disruptive behavior when your block expires. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Quick note

Once your block expires, you are obviously more than welcome to contribute constructively. Make sure you read our manual of style, as many of your edits violated this. Also, when challenged, it is helpful if you discuss your edits with other editors rather than ignoring them. A lot of editors considered your edits vandalism, especially as you refused to explain them. On a side-note, make sure you look at WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN regarding your edits changing from one national variety of English to another. AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Never read the entire note on "minor edits"....Only made it to "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Sort of check the box to make a point often when I don't think the edits are disputable. I'll be more careful about checking the box now. Thanks. -Robot psychiatrist (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make changes like this. —SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

And in answer to the question on your Talk Page "Can I say fuck the Queen?": yes, you can say that if you want to quickly make lots of enemies in the UK. And there are of lots of perfectly reasonable republicans in the UK too, who would not want to demean their cause by using such vile insulting language. Especially in the year of her Majesty's 90th birthday. But hey, your choice buddy. 86.189.224.95 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Call it a free speech thought experiment. I'll remove it. You're right though, profanity doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. Robot psychiatrist (talk), 18:30, 29 April 2016

May 2016

You are continuing your inappropriate and nationalistic edits. For example, changing the country from "United Kingdom" to "England" in inaccurate and wholly improper contexts. Please stop making unconstructive and contentious edits. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean it as a chauvinistic/nationalistic edit etc., meant it according to the proper definition of "country", since the United Kingdom isn't presently a country, it's a state (of four member countries). Robot psychiatrist, 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's really a debate about the use of terminology in the English language, perhaps American vs. British you could probably say. I won't continue to make edits like that, sorry about that. I just don't consider the UK to be a country, I consider it to be a state, especially considering that it has countries within it. A "country of countries" is a confusing and redundant use of terminology, the same goes for a "state of states". I've never intended any of my edits to be nationalistic. I'm still working on being a better Wikipedian. Thanks for the tips. Robot psychiatrist (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your good-faith reply. As noted at United Kingdom, the UK is regarded as a country. England is a constituent country. I agree that it can be a confusing concept. AusLondonder (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

In a recent edit to the page Internet censorship in China, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'll try to stop doing that. I think it's been kind of default behavior since I'm not necessarily aware of the conventions in the other dialects of English so I often change to what I consider to be the "correct / proper" version, etc. Robot psychiatrist (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's ok. I think your enthusiasm is good and I'm sure you can become a useful contributor. Maybe take a look at British and American spelling differences to see the most prominent examples of different spelling. The spelling you changed at Internet censorship in China was "offences" to "offenses". AusLondonder (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrei Shorets

The article Andrei Shorets has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GAB^gab 02:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robot psychiatrist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)