User talk:DrBobDrBob

Welcome!
Hello, DrBobDrBob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Hulmem. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Three Mile Island accident, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Bolero
The Wiktionary definition of "aside" most relevant to Shah's assertion is, "A minor related mention, an afterthought." Since the information relates directly to the origin of the main melody, it wouldn't seem to be an "afterthought." Nor is it consistent with the asides given as examples in Wiktionary. Please explain your reasoning. Tapered (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Duct tape
I have reverted your edits at Duct tape because they changed wording that had been arrived at after discussion on Talk:Duct tape. If you still think the wording should be changed, please bring it up on the talk page, and do not change the article until there is a consensus to do so on the talk page. - Donald Albury 12:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Color field
Hi, Dr.BobDr.Bob, i read your changes... first there was: "During the late 1950s and 1960s, color field painters emerged in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Washington, D.C. and the West Coast of the United States" - now you changed it to: "During the late 1950s and 1960s, color field painters emerged in parts of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the United States, particularly New York, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere" - "elswhere" is not exactly "West Coast of the United States" - why did you focus on New York and Washington, but erased the "West Coast"? Just curious, --Gyanda (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Color Field
Sure. I'd be happy to explain my thinking.

The Chicago and New York schools were the most represented concentrations in Color Field. "The West Coast" did in fact have some Color Field activity, but so did Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and several other areas. I felt that "the United States" effectively incorporated all of the areas in the US outside of the two major concentration areas in Chicago and New York. To emphasize the West Coast would then require you to emphasize north-central Midwest, mid-Atlantic states, etc., since those areas shared equal influence with the West Coast.

I actually considered eliminating New York in Chicago since "the United States" covers them, but given their significance in the field I felt mentioning them was still justifiable. DrBobDrBob (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. As i don't know exactly where the centers of this particular art-field were - and i assume you do - i can only accept your answer. The United States cover just such a huge range of places! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm Eagles247. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Lyle Alzado seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I made several Edit and I’m not sure which one you had a problem with. I think it was that I referred to him succumbing to his illness. Please explain what was not neutral about that. DrBobDrBob (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes the only edit you made that was an issue was the "succumbing to his illness" and "finally coming to an end" additions. These are listed in the words to watch in the manual of style, specifically under WP:EUPHEMISM. "Died" is neutral and accurate according to the guidelines, and adding "finally coming to an end" makes it appear that his brain cancer "battle" was much longer than others.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I had no idea. I meant no disrespect do either him or anyone else and just wanted to make the entry read a little smoother than the otherwise abrupt “died”. Thank you. DrBobDrBob (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay! I know you didn't mean any harm with the edit, thanks for your contributions!  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Good luck!
...with the longevity of your edit to antifa, which has it as predominantly far-left rather than predominantly left wing. This very thing had been the subject of interminable debate in the article’s Talk page. There are editors who are acting as de facto apologists for antifa, including an admin, who will use any trick in the book to water down the ‘headline’ description, being the first sentence or two in the lede. Coincidentally, I made a good number of edits to the article earlier today, and the the quote from the renowned Bray character which you’ll perhaps see at the end of the Ideology secretion is very telling. I added that. You could use what he says in any discussion in Talk, which the editors I’ve described above will undoubtedly wish to bog you down in. You have my full support! Boscaswell  talk  06:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can appreciate your point of view, and feeling like the cards are stacked against the changes you may have proposed (I’m not really familiar with your edits), but you’ve been editing here for a bit. This was out of process, controversial, and some of the edits against consensus. And none of it sourced, and edits to the lead. You shouldn’t be congratulating a new editor on flouting policy. The more stable version does reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. This can obviously be tweaked or subject to changing circumstances or consensus to some extent. But removing “anti-fascist” from the lead is ridiculous. I’m not sure if you caught that specific edit, but let’s not pretend that’s kosher. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * how weird!  Following me to another editor’s Talk page to criticise me is particularly odd.
 * I still congratulate DrBobDrBob. As I’ve explained, that his edits may have been against consensus is not exactly a great surprise, when a pack of apologists for antifa's revolutionary, anarchist/communist agenda patrol the article. Why aren’t you criticising those editors? “Oh, they’re part of the consensus bla bla CNN ...bla bla” is not worthy of anyone in this particular matter.  Boscaswell   talk  14:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to say something constructive to this editor. But your comment was a bit surprising, and I felt needed to be addressed.
 * Honestly, your attitude in this reply is way over the top. You’re calling other editors apologists for anarchists and communists, and mentioning CNN for some (inexplicable) reason? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now I think good faith need not be assumed. Are you sure you’re here to actually build an encyclopedia, within the scope of our policies? Because you basically just confirmed you’re hoping editors buck core policies in the interest of WP:RGW. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Antifa (United States), you may be blocked from editing. You changed predominantly left-wing to "predominantly far left" with the edit summary "Added neutral balancing language" - which was clearly misleading as it didn't do any of the sort.  Doug Weller  talk 12:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage Lighting Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Precursor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 22nd Street station (SEPTA), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trolley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pectus excavatum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have corrected the link to point to the correct source and not the disambiguation page DrBobDrBob (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Add this below source for citation needed tag sentence shanghai 2013 in lee min ho (actor) article
https://www.alamy.com/south-korean-actor-lee-minho-right-poses-with-his-wax-statue-at-madame-tussauds-shanghai-in-shanghai-china-19-april-2013-image263730249.html 123.215.16.234 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places 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 Articles for deletion/List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Your participation would be significant as you have edited Lee Min-ho's page before. Thank you.  -ink&amp;fables     «talk»   12:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Perzel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Lewis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pickled pigs' feet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner
With this edit you attempted to convert an ISSN number into a phone number. Please check if your browser (or any plug-ins) do this mis-edit automatically and please check your edits more carefully.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It was automatic, as it was certainly not my intention to convert the ISSN number to a phone number. DrBobDrBob (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plasticizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tubing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion MichaelMeggs.
 * I made several changes. In some cases, the original text was overly broad in its generalities, but I felt the citations posted were adequate to support the clarification (such as only oral usage appears to be the case by 18881, but written documentation didn't appear until tin-pan-alley lyrics were published after the turn-of-the-century2, both adequately cited in the original Wikipedia article).
 * 1The counting-out rhymes of children... (H.C. Bolton,1888)
 * 2 "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo", (song) (Bert Fitzgibbon's 1906)
 * Other changes I made included putting the posted data in chronological order, the citations for which I take no responsibility for, and which I assume required no additional citations even though some of the original postings might not have been adequately cited by others.
 * Could you be a little more granular as to which items that I posted required additional citation. I am happy to provide more specific citations for the individual items where available. (I may need help in posting the citation properly, but that's a separate issue that stems from my lack of skill and experience with Wikipedia. Apologies in advance.) DrBobDrBob (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh. My apologies. I didn't realize this caused others more work. I will provide at least a brief summary on the future. DrBobDrBob (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

DDT
Extensively used by the military might be a better way of putting it, according to the source, but I would not remove the source entirely. I would agree that the source doesn't directly say "the government" promoted it.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)