User talk:Rolf h nelson

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

Doctoral Students[edit]

You removed PhD students from Marvin Minsky's page who did not have wikipedia pages or support for notability, commending "un-wikilinked doctoral students; if a student is notable by Wikipedia standards, add him back with a wikilink or with a source attesting to his notability". The practice seems to be that many academics have all of their graduated PhD students listed. See, for example, Ron Rivest, Terry Winograd, David Karger, John McCarthy (computer scientist) and Alfred Aho. Tim Finin (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tim Finin, but non-notable PhD students aren't supposed to be listed, see [1] or the description of the field in [2]. It's true that the less traffic a bio receives, the less likely it is to conform to policy, but if the inconsistency bugs you, feel free to delete or comment out non-notable students in other pages. If you think the policy should change, and have an argument why this info would be useful, definitely raise the issue at [3]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Black hole[edit]

Hi. Quote:"first ever direct detection of black holes" would need a stronger cite to be included as fact

What stronger cite do you need? Multiple physicist and Prof. Stephen Hawking are affirming the same thing


The actual signal shows the black holes before during and after the merger:

Quantanew (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Danzmann says "first ever direct detection of black holes" but Hawking just says "first observation of gravitational waves, and of two black holes colliding and merging." "Direct" is a subjective term, but it seems to me most sources either (1) don't claim gravity waves from their interaction as "direct" detection of the black holes themselves, or (2) less commonly, claim that we've already had "direct" detection of a black hole in the past. But feel free to open a section on Talk:Black hole. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Black hole[edit]

I haven't been following Zedshort's edits but if it is full of unnecessary grammatical changes why not just revert back to 09:46, 18 February 2016. Fixed in one click. SlightSmile 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The gerund form of verbs makes the writing very clunky. Reverting without thinking is mindless. Zedshort (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a conflicting edit that would have to be reapplied, but yeah, if someone else wants to resume it that would be the way to go. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Analyi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I have also added this comment to prove to you that I am a human editor. Thank you. Analyi|(talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a spurious warning. LjL (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The edit was referring to me as a "robot" in an offensive manner. Analyi|(talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you're a disruptive human, and not a disruptive robot; I apologize for any offence given to robots. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I think both of you should calm down. The WP:AIV report was unwarranted; Analyi seems to be quite tag-happy, but among their user warnings, I've spotted a few that let me find out about actual vandals. A number of their edits seemed legitimate, and so it's hard to call them a purely disruptive account. If you have sockpuppetry suspictions, you should gather evidence and take them to the appropriate venues. LjL (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LjL, Analyi did indeed end up being banned as a sock of Legiallity. I don't know whether the vandals Analyi tagged were socks of Analyi or actual vandals, but either way, I agree I erred in using AIV rather than a different board. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It could be a strategy to obtain autoconfirmed status or a general aura of legitimacy, tagging vandals (or creating them and then tagging them). Something definitely didn't add up, but it's best to tread lightly when the other party is in turn being subtle. LjL (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marco Rubio[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

request for comment for BLP article[edit]

Hi there. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article and attributed to citations from his personal website/blog? Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kim Jong-un image[edit]

I've boldly deleted File:North korea 2016 purported warhead.jpg per this discussion. Please see all of the many discussions at Talk:Kim Jong-un and then, if you still feel that image is acceptable, please start a discussion at that talk page with the link to that image's source. If the community agrees, then upload it. Thank you kindly for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Population Bottleneck - apparent Typo[edit]

I think there is a typo in your recent edit to Population Bottlenecks. I have not edited before and was reluctant to make a change without first investigating. If I am reading the revision history correctly, I think you made the edit.

On the last line or the first paragraph under "Humans", it says: "That said, the possibility of a severe recent species-wide bottleneck can be ruled out." Shouldn't that be "cannot be ruled out".?? Thanks. GregGaul (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No typo; the source says "Considerable genetic data are inconsistent with a recent bottleneck in the human lineage". If you've read the sources and think the current text is unclear or incorrect, feel free to propose changes on the edit page, or better yet be WP:BOLD and make any edits that might improve it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vincent C. Müller[edit]

Hi, I'm JamesG5. Rolf h nelson, thanks for creating Vincent C. Müller!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. External links & references are transposed and need to be switched. Needs more sources to establish notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. JamesG5 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of South America[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exemplar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of academic citations as truth criteria?[edit]

Hi- I saw that you deleted much new text in Technological singularity. I had seen the new addition yesterday and actually thought it was great (especially the Figure, which is always a nice contribution to bring Wikipedia to life). While you recognize that the article that was cited as source was published in one of the world's leading academic journals, you argue that the contribution should be deleted since it has not yet been cited. I just checked and the article was just published 2 months ago... Academic citations naturally take time (often years) and I don't agree that Wikipedia as a quick modern source has to wait for them... I would like your changes to be reversed, since I think that this content improved the article on Singularity (without it, the argument is very AI-focused, while technological singularity would not be possible without the growth of pure digital data...). This being said, I agree with your comment on the "information potentially available for recombination"- this wording can be improved.InfoCmplx (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|InfoCmplx (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by InfoCmplx (talkcontribs) 05:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AI control problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chatbot and Stuart Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pendant Productions[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pendant Productions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

About non-notable sources[edit]

Hi. You removed a Forbes ref from the WR 104 article some time ago, with the argument that Forbes blogs was "generally" non-notable sources. What do you mean by "generally"? I also wanted to know how you know that they are non-notable? Is there a list of non-notable sources somewhere perhaps? Just curious, as it would be great to consult such a list when you work with refs and sources on other pages. RhinoMind (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Personally I agree there should be a list of known "usually admissible" and "usually inadmissable" sources, you should suggest it at the RS noticeboard if it hasn't been discussed already. See the paragraph at WP:BLOGS for what "generally" means; my interpretation is a top subject-matter expert's blog can be used, where the content is uncontroversial among the experts and where no better published source exists. I believe that WP:BLOGS rather than WP:NEWSBLOG (which I've never seen used) applies to Forbes blogs, but I'll ask for clarification on what WP:NEWSBLOG policy is here: [4] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Ortega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ángel González (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Productivity paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Roach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence 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/One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply on nuclear holocaust talk[edit]

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ping again. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Rolf h nelson. 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)

Please comment on Talk:The Stooges (album)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stooges (album). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Photon Leakage[edit]

Rolf, you have blanked the photon leakage section at least 4 times now, and do not seem to be making much progress on the talk page of RF resonant cavity thruster. I would suggest that you think about it a bit at this point and decide whether its time to either drop the issue, or move on to dispute resolution. I think that continued discussion on this issue on the talk page seems to be going into a wiki black hole, and it seems obvious to me that if you think the issue is that serious that you should start a mediated DR on the issue, rather than continue to bang your head against a brick wall on the talk page. Another option is that you could take IBtimes to the RS noticeboard, to discuss whether it should or should not be considered a RS for this article, and following that discussion we can move from there. Regardless of what you choose, link me to the discussion please. InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that not much progress in being made in either side convincing the other on whether to include. Do you understand the rules of WP:CONSENSUS? The status quo ante in this case is non-inclusion; it is the generally responsibility of the editors who want to modify the page to escalate (for example, by bringing the RS board into the discussion). Do you understand why the policy is what it is, and what WP:FRINGE articles across Wikipedia would look like if we didn't have this policy? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
If anyone else was joining you in reverting it, I might agree, but the consensus is firmly against you. One person does not get to disrupt an article and force content out by crying "But consensus! *I* don't like it!". At this point you are entering the realm of tendentious editing, so perhaps you should take another look at Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors. Again, why are you continuing to edit war? Just take it to DR or RS, as I've suggested. There we can have a calm discussion on the matter and decide it once and for all. InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Multiple editors have voiced opposition to the addition of the poorly-sourced fringe paper arguing that photons can pass through arbitrarily large potential barriers via destructive interference. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your belligerent behaviour[edit]

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you..

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [5], yet you ignore it and are pushing your own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is seriously disruptive editing. As Sparkyscience correctly told you: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)" Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)" Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you and I agree that at least one of us is being disruptive, I went ahead raised an issue at ANI. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing others' comments[edit]

I'm sure that this edit was a mistake, but please be more careful. It's a good habit to both preview your own edits before saving changes and to check your diffs afterwards. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, my touchpad must've jumped. I will be more careful; thanks for fixing it! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)