User talk:Rkaplan

Welcome!

Hello, Rkaplan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Robdurbar 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:AST300006.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AST300006.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Flight Level Aviation[edit]

I have nominated Flight Level Aviation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Level Aviation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. YSSYguy (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:FlightLevelPanel.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:FlightLevelPanel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Elizabeth Holmes, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. utcursch | talk 21:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but doesn't that apply to Forbes and WLJ and the rest? None of them seem to have been reliable in this case. rkaplan

By original research, I'm referring to your personal commentary ("Though some may question the accuracy..."). The ZeroHedge issue is a separate matter. utcursch | talk 22:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK can you suggest another way I can word that? My point was simply - it's unfair to say Durden is an unreliable source but Forbes is reliable. The whole story in the news is that the usual reliable sources may have totally let us down and coronated a "billionaire" who is really worth almost nothing. That's what the preponderance of the news says. How do you suggest we make that point in the Wiki article on Holmes? rkaplan

We don't make any point unless it's made by a reliable source. Whether a source is reliable or not can be easily determined using the well-established guidelines (WP:RS). utcursch | talk 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as those guidelines say: "Context matters" - Here the whole story is that the mainline "reliable" media may have let us down and may be fantastically wrong. In that "context" - per Wikipedia rules - inclusion of Durden as a source is entirely "reliable" and reasonable. If you feel othewise, let's bring this very point up in formal mediation or a formal vote or some other way that involves others to help us resolve this. rkaplan

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Rkaplan.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. utcursch | talk 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Elizabeth Holmes. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate policy - I added one reference, you questioned it, I added a second highly reputable reference (The Economist) to support the concept, and I asked you to take this to a formal mediation/discussion, which is in process. It is a violation of Wiki rules for you to Undo my contribution more than 3 times while the discussion/mediation is in progress. Let's continue the discussion there.Rkaplan (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:FlightLevelLogo.gif[edit]

The file File:FlightLevelLogo.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]