User talk:R3ap3R

Tip of the day...

How to move/rename a page

You can usually move a page to a new title by clicking on the move tab at the top of the page. This preserves the edit history by transferring the edit history along with the page move. The talk page, will be moved as well, if you check the box requesting that.

When a page is moved, a redirect is automatically created at the old location. Please fix any double redirects that result. Use the "what links here" link in the left hand column of any page to find the double redirects so you can edit them and point them to the new page name.

Moving a page in this way is not possible in some cases, such as when a page other than a fresh redirect exists at the destination, or when the page is move protected, but you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Please do not "cut and paste" to move the text to its new location, because this leaves the page history behind. Thank you.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Read more:

Help:How to move a page  

Become a Wikipedia tipster

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

lol

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This literally made me laugh out loud. Simply awesome. J.delanoygabsadds 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Hollander

Hello, I'm still new at this, but I'm glad to do whatever is required to make Mr. Hollander's entry in the spirit of Wikipedia. I see that it was rolled back to an older revision. Does "Unverified Changes" refer to something other than references? Please let me know how I can edit the page to be useful and accurate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icberry (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's good as it is now. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Arch Crippin Speedy Deletion

I have removed the speedy deletion request from this page, the page clearly makes claims to notability - please be careful when tagging articles that they meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Camw (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit history on article suggests a "self-published" concern. What makes you think this ?-Sticks66 12:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The one reference is affiliated with the league the individual associates with. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of CSD for Ghuzarish (film)

Hi. I have removed the speedy template for the above article. Notability has been asserted, although the article needs some significant improvement. Feel free to watch the article and nominate it for AfD if no improvements are made. Best regards. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a recreation of versus added merge tags R3ap3R.inc (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good catch! And that's why we wouldn't just want to CSD (speedy) the article for A7 (not being notable), since notability was established. Thanks for adding the merge suggestion. You rock! --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zhao Yiman

Hi again. It's amazing what can happen when everyone works together. Look how improved this stub biography is with just a little help. You might want to thank the editor who was able to rescue the article while checking the Speedy Delete tag which was installed. Have fun editing. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Blake (Aninote)

It's not an advertisement... The site doesn't even EXIST any more. Check the sources! Netpassport89 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it is an advert, not notable. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The warning was for recreating content AFTER THE PAGE WAS ALREADY DELETED ONCE 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

^Ftw, this article was deleted AfD. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Storye book (speedy deletion)

Thanks for kindly recognising my hangon. Unfortunately, as you will see from the page history, I have been slowly writing the article from scratch this evening, and Wiki people were trying to tag it before I had finished putting the first draft together. Please kindly read the discussion page before considering deleting. Because this tenor singer was previously little recognised outside of Russia, most citations are in Russian - and I don't read Russian. I am slowly gathering citations, but it's a long job. Please kindly be patient with this one. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Desycling page

Hi R3ap3R.inc,

You have deleted the page I was just creating, even before it was published. How you did that, I don;t know, but it sure was fast. Because I was in the process of creating it, it was impossible to determine if this page was suited for wikipedia or not. At the moment of deleting it, it just contained 4 or 5 of the intended 50 sentences, and no pictures yet. I was still trying to find out about layout etc, because it was my first article in wikipedia. This is not very motivating and I sure do want to start my series of design topics, because I do think that Wikipedia lacks a lot of pages about design strategies.

Please help me to get the page back, so I can actually finish it. After that, you may completely destroy it if it does not match the criteria of Wikipedia, but I think that deleting something during the creation process is overkill.

Thanks,

Dosigner

I didn't delete it, and it deserved to be deleted. It was blatant advertising. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're not going for the nice approach. I will try to keep it short as well. Try to read again what I wrote. I hardly even finished the first sentences and was still trying to find out how wikipedia works, as it was already deleted. I understand now that obviously I did not do it right. I should write the whole article offline and paste it in there, but you must have seen my paragrpah about criticism on the concept. That is hardly advertising. Anyway, I go to sleep now and will try again tomorrow, publishing the whole article in one piece, so you can judge with more nuance. Thanks for your time.

Dosigner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosigner (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, I will see that it is deleted. The links show that "desycling" is a trademark term used FOR PROFIT. Blantant WP:COI. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aqua Jones Speedy Deletion

I don't feel that the speedy deletion of Aqua Jones was warranted. This page is about a band that was popular in the Louisville,_Kentucky music scene in the late 90's and early 00's. The speedy deletion was said to be because there was no indication that the subject was significant or important. Aqua Jones has performed with the likes of Flaw, Tantric, and 8stops7. If these subjects are allowed pages, I don't see why Aqua Jones wouldn't be.

They've recently reunited and they have a reunion show scheduled for 5/27/09, so I feel as though the page is both significant and important.

Let me know what I can do to get this page out of speedy deletion status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrmdawg (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there may be some WP:COI as well here considering this is your only contribution to wiki. Also, I didn't delete it... I just nominated it for deletion. Find me QUALITY reference from a reputable third pary, and I will consider your motion for a reconsideration. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is Aqua Jones' page on garageband.com. As you can see, their song "Hollywood Faces" was ranked #1 of 1,065 in Rap Rock on 11/09/2002.

Here is a link to Phoenix Hill Tavern's upcoming calendar. If you will please notice the entry for 5/27, that shows that Aqua Jones is scheduled to perform.

Here is a link to Aqua Jones' artistdirect.com page.

I am not a member of this band, nor do I have any financial interest in promoting them, so there should be no question of my number of contributions or motives. This is just an informative article on a band in the city in which I live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrmdawg (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Put it up, and if someone else nominates it let me know and we will go AfD (where three admins preside over it). R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrmdawg (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

C.Fred deleted the page. Could you please have a talk with him and allow this perfectly legitimate page to be created without all of this hassle? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrmdawg (talk • contribs) 22:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's up here R3ap3R.inc (talk)

Gerald Fitzgerald

I look at the Gerald Fitzgerald (priest) article and added some citations. You may want to look at User:OrangeMike's talk page about the article some thoughts, etc.Many thanks-RFD (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate Baldwin

Actors who land the leading role in a major Broadway production merit Wikipedia pages. Really they do.Historicist (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference is unverified blog post; no reliable source. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussions.

Hi again. I just wanted to let you know that I support your AfD nominations for Tom Hollander and Robert Bake (Aninote), as they definitely fail the guidelines you have used for your argument. I will not be supporting the nomination of 68P/Klemola. If you haven't viewed the improvements made by an editor to the article, you might want to re-visit that page. I appreciate the time you are talking to try to become more familiar with the deletion process, and it appears to be paying off for you. Best of luck with your editing. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw those edits, but I can't remove an AfD tag until it is decided.... you saw before, it didn't make any sense whatsoever. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate Baldwin

Thank you.Historicist (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

John Dryzek

You're my new friend! I had to change a few things. Here's a quick tip for academic biographies. The quickest way to verify their notability is by an ISBN search, if one is listed. Also, someone published by Oxford University Press will most likely have verifiable sources. What you would be looking for would be: no results on Amazon, or a self-published book, or lack of any legitimate academic sources to establish notability. I therefore did some cleanup on this article, and exchanged templates. Off to the races! --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting a paper pubbed doesn't meet notability requirements, especially when they are limited only to a white paper with no republishing by journals of a reputable nature and the only ref is 404 R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's another tip: If you edit your talk page so that each subject heading (or most) are wiki links of the articles they concern, not only will you be able to find them easier in your archive, but you'll be able to see which of the articles you discuss are actually deleted at some point, by the links being red (for gone, outta here) or blue/purple (for saved). ;o) --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your revert? --Kabad (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything with this article... you got the wrong guy, go look at the edit history. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to this reversion on a different article Names of God in the Quran. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 14:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV; it belongs categorized in mythology, as evidenced by the placement of similar articles under that category. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you find mythology in the Names of God in the Qur'an? Kabad talk:Kabad talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do; it is UNPROVEN and believed by only one group of people. I also find from your edit history that you have an issue with maintaining a NPOV when it comes to Islamic religion. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what mythology means. Nevertheless, everything religious is believed by some people. As for npov that's your pov. Kabad (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Islamic_mythology states as such. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Training Institute

Just as an FYI, G4 only applies if there was a discussion leading to the deletion of the article. An article that is speedily deleted, then recreated, is not a G4 candidate.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Training Institute

Hi, I'm here because of a warning you left on User talk:Kevincarldavis warning him for removing an AFD tag from Timothy Training Institute. I went back and looked at the edit history, and I couldn't find where the article had even been nominated for AFD, much less when he removed the tag. You may have been referring to the PROD tag, which he didn't even remove, although he can. Unlike Speedy Deletion tags, PROD tags can actually be removed by the article's creator. However, this wasn't even the case, as you can see here that the tag was removed by another editor. I'm curious as to why you placed this tag. Nonetheless, I removed the PROD again and took it to AFD. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It was for WP:PROD, I couldn't find the right template to use (because apparently the creator can remove a PROD tag from their article); my bad. Thanks for letting me know! R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Quadrino Schwartz

What prompted the speedy deletion?Sushilover boy (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reads like an ad; creator's only contribution to wiki was to make this article. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So you mean that it was flagged because the contributor was a first timer? Or it really reads like an ad?Sushilover boy (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads like an ad, and I suspect COI R3ap3R.inc (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicions are rather hard to prove though aren't they? Could you explain further why you suspect the COI? Sushilover boy (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anymore, but it was the sentence structure and language. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD

I've seen you nominate several article for 'notability'. Please don't nominate with just one word, but explain why you believe an article fails the notability criteria and where you looked for sources to fix the issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I usually use Google and check any third-party references on the page. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that claim is entirely true in every case- you nominated John Dryzek for 'notability' and it is clear from the first page of a google search that he is a prolific published author.Empanda (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I never AfD'd him. I based a CSD speedy on the definition: the wiki article (at the time) made no reference of notability or claim to notability. Generally speaking, I do little to no research before CSD because most CSD's are obvious (and sometimes innocent articles get caught in the crossfire) and quite a bit of research before I go AfD. If it isn't speedy, and I don't want to do the research, I use WP:PROD R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Storye Book

Hi. On 4th April you added a multiple issues tag to my new page "Yevgeny Belyayev (singer)". I have made a big effort to correct all problems, hopefully to justify the removal of all the tags. Thank you for kindly being so patient in this matter. Please would you kindly have another look at the page, to see whether the tags can now be removed? I would be most grateful if you could do this? If there are still problems, please could you let me know? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed a few tags, still needs proper inline references. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help, R3ap3R. Now I hope someone who speaks Russian can provide further inline refs, as there is nothing available in English that I can find on the web or on paper. Cheers. --Storye book (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, R3ap3R.inc. Sorry, I have now realised what you meant by inline refs (this has been my first proper new page). I have re-done all the refs as inline refs (all 200+ of them - it took all day). Please would you kindly have another look at my page Yevgeny Belyayev (singer) and see whether the changes make it acceptable to remove the inline ref tag? Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good R3ap3R.inc (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind help and patience. Much appreciated. --Storye book (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

sorry, i was merely pointing something out...didn't seem any less constructive than other edits there. my bad82.46.43.33 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)82.46.43.33 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

article tagging

One quick comment: if you are going to tag an article, it would be ideal if you explained the issues you see on the talk page. But that's often too much work and it's pretty obvious. But please watchlist it so when people ask what you mean you have a chance to explain. (re: Jet Set Zero). Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem; oddly, TW seems to "pick and choose" which ones it watches and which ones it doesn't. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:SusanBoyle.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SusanBoyle.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle AfD

You can give it a break -- I'm 100% certain at this point that the article won't be deleted. In fact I expect the AfD to be closed very shortly. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:SusanBoyle.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:SusanBoyle.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Netpassport89

Hey, I really didn't want to get involved here, but since I butted into your heated discussion with Netpassport89 earlier today, I feel obligated to put in my 2 cents. Netpassport89 has been banned, just let it go. You look like you have a pretty decent track record on Wikipedia, don't go messing it up over some two-bit argument/feud/whatever. Let bygones be bygones, turn the other cheek, and move on. Nicktfx (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it just pisses me off. I even removed a speedy CSD from the article that started all this, and put in an AfD.... he then called me an asshole and started removing tags and vandalizing a few other articles, before defacing my page. He got blocked for 48 hours.... ~ 51 hours later, he defaces my page again and a rollback war for ~ 4 rounds, blocked 55 hours, came back and did it to me again with five tags four times (all "final" warnings, lol) etc... Since I will inevitably run into people like this as a super-active RCP, I wish I had block capabilities; can you help me with the RfA process? I have over a year active, TW, rollback priveleges, etc. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your diffs

Your diffs here do not make sense to me. You've now made a clear timed reliable reference and replaced it with a constantly updating reference not adding anything useful. Also it's not true that over half the video views where from a youtube submission. Don't really understand what you are trying to do here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The ref shows over a half million views had been hit at the point referenced; the source will retain the data for this month as linked, even beyond this month, so it is not constantly changing per se because the daily stats are already recorded. Also, it should have said "over a third" not over half. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's changed to "over a third". That's WP:OR at this point as no sources support that information. SunCreator (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also be incorrect, it's less then a third. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows Vista

Hi, I'm disregarding your placing of a templated 3RR warning message on my talk page -- I'm cleaning up vandalism caused by an editor who is removing large swaths of information (fully one-third of the article) and replacing information derived from reliable sources with original research. The editor also seems uninterested in discussing their proposed changes on the article's talk pages despite a request to do so. In the future, when you consider using 3RR template, do the following three things out of respect for the editors whom you're choosing to warn:

1. Ensure that three non-vandalism reversions have actually taken place.
2. As a general rule, don't use templates with established users; it's considered rude. You can safely assume that any editor with over, say, 2,000 edits is familiar with 3RR and doesn't need an impersonal template that's almost exclusively reserved for use with newcomers.
3. Try to resolve the problem instead of simply warning the particpants -- few problems are ever resolved with a template.

Thanks. Warren -talk- 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I reviewed the edits a little better. I was in a hurry, copy/paste + TW, going off of the history/comments. The other editor received equal notice. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Atmospheric beast

Hello R3ap3R.inc, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Atmospheric beast has been removed. It was removed by 76.5.159.167 with the following edit summary '(several "mainstream" novels by several "mainstream" authors are mentioned, including Carl Sagan. This is not a scientific theory, it is a hypothesis that is used many times in fiction, like Sasquatch)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 76.5.159.167 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Arbitration Notice - disruption at Scientology-related article, "Operation Snow White"

1. [1], and
2. [2]

• Please be aware of the applicable remedies from the Arbitration Committee case, Scientology, as well as the prior case, COFS.
• Repeatedly changing the word "Church" or "Scientology" or other words to refer to the organization, to instead display the word "cult", is against consensus across the articles, and disruptive in nature.
• Please undo your recent edits to the article, "Operation Snow White". Otherwise, under the provisions of the Arbitration Committee case, Scientology, this will be reported to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard as a form of disruption within articles on the topic covered by the Arbitration decision.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

Hi, and welcome. Please be aware that one of the articles you have been editing, Operation Snow White, is subject to the restrictions mentioned above per WP:ARBSCI. Using deceptive summaries like here can be seen as an attempt to add content without review. (Based on your sockpuppetry case it has been determined that you are this user.) No action is being taken at this time, but please be aware that (1) editing with IPs instead of your account is inappropriate for these restricted articles, especially with intent to deceive, and (2) edit warring over topics related to Scientology (broadly construed) can lead to blocks. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Nobody had intent to deceive, I thought I was logged in but the cookie was apparently expired.. I just didn't log in before the edit; after I logged in, I backed it with a reference to TIME. In fact, I can find no less than 10 major mainstream news organizations that refer to it as a cult by name R3ap3R.inc (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

Why in the world did you revert my edit? Perhaps you hadn't seen what I had edited. I'm changing it back because it's verifiable as well as the truth. Thanks. Yves (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, I only saw the beginning part of the edit that showed the access data had been changed and I made a quick AGF rollback. My apologies ^_^ R3ap3R.inc (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's alright. If I had only changed the access date, why would that be wrong? I do that a lot sometimes, when I go through an entire discography and verify each and every peak to make sure they're correct and some sneaky IP hasn't changed any of them. As long as the information is still correct, I'm just verifying them again. Yves (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would just change an access date unless the db the ref pointed at was updated and a confused person changed the access date. In fact, the APA has guidelines for that & I had to look it up lol R3ap3R.inc (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows APA styling? I still don't see why it's wrong, though. I'll look back at a page like Katy Perry discography and think, "Oh look: I haven't verified this page in eight months—maybe I should do that today." What if an editor incorrectly changed a peak from "2" to "1" and the access date had never been changed? Would it be wrong for me to change it back from "1" to "2" and update the access date? If I don't remember what it said the last time I accessed it... I can't really not update the access date. I don't see where I'm going wrong here. :S Yves (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I missed the peak change completely and only saw an access date edit :P R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

3rr

I assume you know about the 3rr. Please note that it seems that you have begun an edit war on the Hotchkiss School page.LedRush (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, you are WP:INVOLVED as the other editor in the so-called "edit war", and it was I who warned you of 3RR to start with so yes you could assume I know about the rule lol... R3ap3R.inc (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just sought to remind you as I had only made on revert in 24 hours while you were in danger of making your third.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hotchkiss School

Hello, R3ap3R.inc. Could you please explain the tags you added to this page on Talk:Hotchkiss School? I can't find much in terms of ad-speak in the article, and would like to know what you consider non-neutral. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 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) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Olivier Pramil article

I was about to improve the Olivier Pramil article, which I found during my wanderings, but the Original Research tag on it stymied me. I checked both its references and they both appear to support the statements they follow. I realize its' been a while since your edits to the article, but I just want to improve it a bit and was wondering if you could point me in the correct direction. Cheers! Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

TW

... presuming this command still works, can a man get an update on any major changes to Twinkle or being an RCP in the past few years? Took a break, back now. Thanks! R3ap3R (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No idea, but you can look at the current documentation to see the current features that it has. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tourism Concern

Seems to me that the organisation is in line with the notability requirement and what was lacking was the referencing and probably more detail on its influence. A case of novice editing more than anything. the previous objection you made, I was curious and took a look at descriptions of other campaigning and pressure groups - found this one pretty similar, or even less trying to sell itself. I have put in some more data and references - plenty more available with a quick Search - and suggest you withdraw the afd request.Comhlamh (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits are great, but under the rules of Wikipedia once nominated for AfD the tag cannot be removed until an admin closes the discussion. R3ap3R (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My changes on the GM Chapter 11 reorg article

Hi there, I did leave a note in my initial removal of the repetitive content. I did your undo and also left a note in the summary. See the Dec. 10 sentence that includes the amount of money the government lost in the bailout. Just tidying up! :) -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Concern on Susan Boyle page

I don't believe Wikipedia should be a place to rat out the name of a young girl who already received enough abuse just for rolling her eye's. The wiki page is about Susan Boyle, not this young girl. Five years after the fact, someone puts her name up on Wiki to be remembered for all time?! That's just not right. Plus, the sentence thrown in is not relevant to the subject of that particular paragraph. Do you not agree? Pumpkin10 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It was well referenced; I am just a common RCP. Take it up with ARBCOM. R3ap3R (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

scaled composites / spaceshipone

Hey R3ap3R, I saw you reverted my good faith edit on SpaceShipOne. I also see that the caption you reverted back agreed with the filename of the photo; perhaps this (sensibly) motivated your revert. However, the company at Mojave working on the engine has a "d" in its name. I believe my edit was correct, and that the filename of the photo was wrong. Before I edit it again, I wanted to discuss with you; do you have evidence against my discussion above, showing that it is in error? Thanks, Fanyavizuri (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No evidence otherwise, just an off - the - cuff revert. Thanks :) R3ap3R (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks; I will revert back. Fanyavizuri (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

You might consider emailing Nagle, as he mentioned he recently talked to a lawyer about the legal threats related to this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alien abduction insurance

Your edit to Alien abduction insurance seems like WP:OVERTAGGING. Most of it has been undone, with reasons given at Talk:Alien abduction insurance#PROD and tag-bombing If you think any of the six removed tags are still needed please restore them, but you should probably read WP:TAGGING first. Meters (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2014 (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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Max Schrems

Hello R3ap3R. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Max Schrems, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: First link is a Forbes article. Clearly that's enough for A7. take it to AfD if you like, but I'm pretty sure it'll fail there. Thank you. GedUK  14:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, R3ap3R. 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)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, R3ap3R. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained tagging

Please don't add tags (as you did here without explaining (in an edit summary at least, and preferably on the article talk page) the specifics of why you are adding the tag, and what you think specifically needs to be done. That is not a constructive use of tagging. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 22:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsumikiria (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Incident notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, R3ap3R. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sudden Death (band)

Hello R3ap3R. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sudden Death (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims to have been featured multiple times on a notable radio show. Thank you. SoWhy 08:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD. Since you had some involvement with the ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Still a scumbag

All you do is mark content for deletion. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freegrs180 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and as such, you ALWAYS break the rule "Assume good faith." You're a m.ise.rable c.u.n..t that just likes to take other people's work and destroy it. At best you're a gar.bageman on Wikipedia, but even real gar.bagemen are worth more than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freegrs180 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jess Dobkin

Hello R3ap3R. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jess Dobkin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 19:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Winograd schema challenge

Hello R3ap3R. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Winograd schema challenge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Viet Dinh

I came across Viet D. Dinh page and see the tags you placed. I'm going to work on it and see what I can do to improve the page. The page already has a bunch of references so could you please provide some more context about what you're looking for here. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, it looks like a bunch of sources have been added since placing the tag. At the time it was placed, the entry was barebones with one primary source. R3ap3R (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't add any of them. I guess it's because he was recently in the news. In any event I will see what I can do to improve the page. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)