User talk:Rebbing/Archive 2

I would
like it if you could attempt to avoid following me around Wikipedia please. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Glancing through your contributions, I see I am the second editor you have accused of harassment this week. I will refer you to his advice and admonish you to learn our content and editing guidelines and, until then, to be willing to learn from your mistakes. When you make ridiculous edits, like adding glory hole to toilets) (between flushometer and hand dryer) (diff), making a redlinked, Urban Dictionary-esque entry-slash-joke on a disambiguation page (diff), or using a source from 1973 to support claims about content on video-sharing websites (diff), you're going to be reverted; and when you mass move categories without discussion, split articles, pick fights with administrators, pursue a grudge at ANI with a bizarre and widely-mocked argument, and then try to modify policy to support that position, you're going to attract attention. Rebb  ing  23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
Thank you!! I was pleased to help keep the peace.

I doubt a rangeblock would be feasible here: these are mobile wireless assignments, and he's shown he has access to other networks as well. I'm unclear on what the procedure is for stale IP socks, but I reported it anyway (SPI case) in case it helps. Thanks for the nudge. Rebb ing  02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And thank you again. You had stated that this person was wanting to start editing again so at least this points to inappropriate activity that would be reason to deny this request. Regardless of anything coming from a reporting, I have learned to look closely at suspicious comments, certainly any that are nonsensical, and just "take a look around with the magnifying glass. Otr500 (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Brontë"
I deleted the "Common" Pronunciation of Brontë because the pronunciation of Brontë as  "Bron-tay" is simpy incorrect. You may have noticed the "e" looks like this= ë those two dots above the e mean that the e is pronounced like in the name Chloë, so it's pronounced "Klowee" not "Klo." Why enshrine an incorrect pronunciation unless it is employed by the author? I have noticed that dictionaries have abdicated their responsbility to provide the correct pronunciation by providing the correct pronunciation as just another option. I don't think that WP has to follow that course, I mean this is an encyclopedia trying to abide by the standards of an encyclopedia isn't it? Last time I checked this wasn't a dictionary. also, you provided a link to WP:Truth I dn't see why. There is a correct way to pronounce a word, it's not an opinion. Unless you're suggeting that there is no empirical truth. Doesn't 2+2=4? or does 2+2=5? And if there is no empirical truth then what is the point of having a dictionary or an encycplopedia? Oh and "Bron-tay" is incorrect not "incorrect." So isn't library pronounced "library" not "libary"? Isn't "ask" pronounced as it appears ending in sk and rhyming with "task" or is it pronounced "axe" ike the tool and rhyming with "tax"?NapoleonX (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no fixed truth in human language. English was not handed down on stone tablets; it has evolved and continues to evolve in lexicon, grammar, spelling, pronunciation, and idiom. Dictionaries follow common usage; they do not dictate it, else they would be insisting on Shakespearean English.


 * This encyclopedia is not in the business of prescribing truth: that's why I linked the essay. Instead, we simply follow what respected sources say. The fact is that "Brontë" is commonly pronounced, not . This is what our source says; and, in my own experience, that's how most people pronounce it. The article does justice to this fact by first reporting Miss Charlotte Brontë's preferred pronunciation and following up with the common pronunciation qualified as such. This is appropriate. Rebb  ing  00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my viewpoints
You have misrepresented my viewpoints more times than I can remember and I view this as harassment. I am currently unable to respond to each false accusation due to the damaged state of my computer but I promise you I will as soon as my computer is fixed since I'm sick to death of your hallucinatory and defamatory campaign against me. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I also think its unfair that you make false accusations when you know I am in a situation wherein I am unable to respond. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is beyond the pale. You revived someone else's closed ANI thread to pursue your tiresome campaign against Jytdog and MEDRS, and you are being harassed? No. My comment was supported by diffs and links to your own edits. Since I do not appreciate being accused of defamation on my own talk page, here is the portion of my ANI response to which you appear to take offense; the links are clear and can be verified by anyone:




 * Given series of harassing reverts and this smear thread you made about me this weekend, I believe the evidence speaks for itself about who is harassing whom. This is not constructive. Please refrain from making further comments of this nature on my talk page. Thank you.  Rebb  ing  19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you insist on repeating your accusations hundreds of times when you know I am unable to respond? Its because you wish for me to come across as incompetent. You are continuing your defamation campaign on this very page minutes after I asked you to at least wait until my computer is fixed so I can explain my side of the story. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? You came to my talk page and made a series of damaging accusations against me, yet it is unfair for me to respond? You make scandalous claims without evidence, and it is a continuation of my campaign against you to defend myself? You have spent all morning drumming up support against someone at ANI, yet you are "in a situation wherein [you are] unable to respond"? No. If you do not want editors to respond to your barbs, keep them in your quiver.


 * I repeat my request that you stay off my talk page until you have something productive, kind, or necessary to say. If you insist on pursuing this, please do so at ANI, in a fresh thread, not here, not in unrelated WikiProjects. Thank you. Rebb  ing  19:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath
Thanks for catching that so quickly. The link posted to the article is merely a conduit to an Amazon affiliate page, which is why so little care was given to the content. WriterWithNoName (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * : Thanks, and I hadn't noticed that (or the ads). Is this just some SEO voodoo, or did the author likely imagine readers visiting that site and clicking through to Amazon? Rebb  ing  15:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * SEO Voodoo. Nice. Yes, that's what it was. WriterWithNoName (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

PC bot
Posted on the VP here. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, from now on, every time a bot posts on a noticeboard it should be mandatory that they end their comment with ", boss." Timothy Joseph Wood  21:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yas. :D Rebb  ing  21:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I love it! At minimum, it could sweep up the most obvious cases; I doubt it could do more than that since a lot of it is subjective: How much useful editing is coming in from anonymous and new editors? How damaging are the edits that get reverted as pending changes?


 * With BLP issues, even a few genuinely malicious edits can be a serious problem. For instance, the API that Google uses to get information for Google Knowledge Graph (the search sidebar thing) retrieves the latest revision of an article, completely bypassing pending changes. Last summer, a certain actress was subject to a significant amount of press attention anent a messy divorce (hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia page views a day, if I recall). Our article was under PC protection at the time. Someone rewrote our lead to say some very unpleasant things about her, and, in the eleven minutes before the edit was reverted, Google updated its sidebar with the new lead, and one of the thousands of people who saw it happened to be a writer at the Daily Mail. It got published. From a BLP standpoint, it isn't that bad: it's plainly just a smear, and, as a public figure, I'm sure much worse has been said about her. The real problem is the impact that high-profile slip-ups like that have on Wikipedia's reputation for encyclopedia-ness. If we can publish that kind of sewage about celebrities, why should we be trusted with anything?


 * Why the API hasn't been modified is beyond me. Google's sidebar has higher readership than Wikipedia, so damming up pending edits for Wikipedia readers while leaving the floodgates wide open to Google seems backwards. Rebb  ing  21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl Arutt pic
Hello. I believe there is a problem with the picture it is a crop from here The picture on wiki says it was own work  by Dan Arutt who is also the same name as Dr. Arutt's father btw. This pic has been deleted before

Here Creativeinsight had added the same pic back marking the edit as minor. I dunno at the very least it smacks of bad faith editing and gaming the system, but I would never say that of a fellow editor. --Wlmg (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * : To me, the history concerning the image looks like well-meant self-promotion coupled with a lack of experience editing Wikipedia as opposed to deliberate manipulation, but I may be mistaken.


 * However, the Commons image File:DrArutt TEDx 032012.jpg is clearly a crop from the Flickr image you linked, which is not licensed under a Commons-compatible license. I've marked it as a copyright violation, and it will likely be deleted shortly. It's possible it was taken by and uploaded with the permission of Mr. Dan Arutt, but, if so, he should be able to upload a full-resolution image with camera metadata to prove that it wasn't copied from elsewhere on the Web.


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers! Rebb  ing  22:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive URL
Re : I have never, in all my time here, seen an archived URL used while the existing source is active. The instructions for both and  say, "an archived copy of a web page, if or in case the URL becomes unavailable" (emphasis mine). We cannot possibly be in the business of determining before the fact what will and will not be archived, can we? Can you point me to a precedent? Thanks. — ATS &#128406;  talk  03:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for your question. As a firm believer in preemptive source archiving, I'm delighted for an opportunity to share the faith.


 * First, as for precedent: both the documentation you quoted ("in case the original URL becomes unavailable") and the template itself (by virtue of the no parameter) contemplate preemptive archiving. Furthermore, because "[t]he effort required to prevent link rot is significantly less than the effort required to repair or mitigate a rotten link," the help page WP:Link rot recommends this practice: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that a citation is created or updated" (emphasis and footnotes omitted).


 * Reasoning also supports preemptive archiving. Verifiability is key to Wikipedia's reliability, yet Web resources routinely become unavailable: websites are restructured; companies go out of business; content providers choose to paywall their content. When this happens to a citation lacking archive parameters, a modest amount of effort must be expended before that citation is usable again:


 * The dead URL must be noticed by someone willing to take action. tries to detect this automatically, but it can be fooled by some soft 404s.
 * An editor must locate a archived copy, verify it, and add it to the citation. CyberBot II attempts to handle this also and is remarkably good, yet it still requires human verification. (I have seen it fail.)
 * Critically, the resource must have been crawled by an archiving service before it became unavailable.


 * In the time between URL failure and repair, the source remains inaccessible to all but the most persistent of readers.


 * Contrast the foregoing with the situation concerning dead URLs in citations having preemptively-added archive parameters: there, a reader can easily access the resource through the archive link, and fixing the link takes only changing no to yes (or unfit for URLs that have been usurped by spam hosts). Most importantly, the existence of an accurate archived copy is nearly certain. (I take the extra precaution of submitting URLs to both the Wayback Machine, which retroactively honors robots.txt exclusions, meaning that archived pages may be rendered inaccessible by intent or whim, and archive.is, which does not.)


 * I have seen far too many articles become unverifiable on account of limited coverage, link rot, and inadequate archiving. I hope this clarifies matters. Rebb  ing  13:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Much obliged. WP:Link rot either didn't come up in my search, or I overlooked it. — ATS &#128406;  talk  19:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
...for your assistance. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Btw
Thanks for being polite. Though Sundayclose does in fact test my resolve to be patient, collaborative and polite, I find it easier to be nice when I come across posts like yours. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * : Thank you for being collegial, and I'm relieved I didn't come off too harshly. Even though I disagreed with your stance and thought you shouldn't be arguing it again, it was clear to me that you had the encyclopedia's best interests at heart.


 * Also, thanks for challenging my argument. After withdrawing my comments, I re-read OR, and I can see I wasn't giving it its due and that my supposed exception runs contrary to the intent of the policy. I gladly stand corrected. Cheers! Rebb  ing  13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have changed your mind on the subject of the RfC, it would really help Sundayclose to understand that I'm not trying to screw with them by explaining that you support the change as well. That is, of course, if you do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it. I agree my argument has no merit, but I'm not yet ready to dismiss the more nuanced views of other editors that favor the current wording. If I find the time, I'll give it another look. Cheers! Rebb  ing  14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops
I accidentally misclicked at Portman talk. I intended to leave an edit summary. I know you indented in very good faith, but I want it to be clear that I am responding to Meatsgains, not Jack Sebastian. Hope you understand. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actuallly, you were respondinging to my post to Meatgains. Indeed, if you had actually intended to post to Meatgains and not in response to my offer to summarize, you'd have set your indent at four colons. You wanted to offer the impression that your post was more original than mine. The petty gaming of the system wasn't unnoticed. I find it a little sad that you feel the need to play those games but hey - you only recreate the world you think you live in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rebbing, sorry this is occurring on your talk page., you don't know what my intentions were, so please stop personalizing a good faith edit. No one has played games more than you in this entire mess (and in fact in most of your interactions with me on the Portman and other articles), so please keep your opinions to yourself. You make some good edits, but the net effect of your work on Wikipedia is destructive because you are so confrontational and hostile, and not just to me. I hope if you intend to continue this nonsense that you won't bother Rebbing any more. Address your concerns about me on my talk page. And by the way, your command to me months ago to "back the fuck off. Lickety-split" was in response to what you thought was stalking your comments on others' talk pages. What the hell do you think your comment above is? Follow your own admonition, even though that might require you to muster up a tad bit of good faith. Let me suggest that you and I avoid each other as much as possible. We obviously both have an interest in the Portman article, but let's try to not follow each other around. There are a few other articles on my watchlist that you have edited; I have actively avoided making any edits that in any way relate to your edits. I hope you can dig up the decency to do the same. Thanks. Sorry again, Rebbing. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do notice that your indenting was accurate this time, so there's that. Secondly, had you really wanted to make this a conversation with me, you would have made it on my talk page. Instead, you wanted an audience. Since Rebbing is currently active in an article where we interact, I have his talk page on my watchlist - not that its any business of yours. Your feeble attempts to game the system are easy to spot. Machiavelli you're not.
 * Yes, please do avoid editing where I do. I've no interest in interacting with you, and Wikipedia is fortunately big enough that we can do that, and I might even forget about you. However, if you have a problem with me, be a mensch and come to my page, not this passive-aggressive bs that clutters up another person's page.
 * Rebbing, sorry about the clutter. Feel free to delete the entire conversation; I've no objections. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No disrespect, but I think you're being most unfair in suggesting that Sundayclose was looking for an audience here. Sundayclose left me a simple, aspersion-free note about undoing my threading; you replied to accuse him of playing games. Whether or not that is true, is it so surprising that he felt the need to defend himself? You are both being somewhat unreasonable in assuming the worst of each other.


 * Also, no offense taken, but I'm a "she." Rebb  ing  19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To his credit, Jack Sebastian left me a note earlier this week; isn't it plausible that he watchlisted this page and saw your comment from his watchlist, not from following you? As I say below, I don't have the energy to figure out which of you is at fault, but you both seem to me to be fine editors, and I have no hard feelings for you or for Jack Sebastian. I'm not upset about your use of my talk page (be my guest), but I'm also skeptical that accusing each other of misconduct (true or not) is productive. Also, I am sorry I felt the need to step on your toes today about threading. Rebb  ing  18:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose was responding to your remarks, but his words were surely intended for Meatsgains. Also, please try to play nicely. Even if your perception of Sundayclose's motivations is accurate, accusing him of petty manipulation and mocking his actions as "sad" accomplishes nothing. I am especially surprised at you as I have repeatedly seen you decrying other's "dramahz". Please take your own advice and try to play nicely? To be clear, I am not taking sides in your feud. I don't have the time to figure out who is to blame. You both appear to be competent editors, and I wish that you could find a way to work together.  Rebb  ing  18:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make more of an effort to play nicely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's simply not how threaded discussions work. Your reply was a direct response to one of Meatsgains' comments; therefore, it belongs one indent further than his. There is no risk that anyone would mistake your reply as a response to Jack Sebastian because your target is clear from the indentation (that's the purpose of threading), and any lingering ambiguity is removed by the leading ping. Making a new top-level comment in the middle of a threaded discussion to emphasize your point makes it needlessly difficult for others to follow the conversation. Rebb  ing  18:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Valid point, Rebbing, and no apology needed. And if you feel the need to remove this section I also have no problem with it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ARTS notability and third party sources
Hello! Last April, you tagged ARTS (radiative transfer code) with and. I have recently expanded the article and added several third-party sources. I hope this contributes to resolving both issues with the article, but I am not sure. Could you please have another look and consider whether you believe the tags are still needed? Thanks! --Gerrit CUTEDH 19:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * : Nicely done. I removed the third party tag, but I'm not sure this meets the notability criteria (which appears to be GNG). I believe there are only three independent sources:




 * I assume you're familiar with these books. Do these actually cover this specific software package and discuss it in more than passing mentions?


 * Also, I'm pleased to see a fellow Vim user in the wild. I'm typing this response in gVim.  Rebb  ing  22:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure if it meets the notability criteria. There are quite a lot (>150) of scientific papers that use ARTS, and all will have a more or less brief paragraph describing it or components of it, more or less saying the same thing.  Some of those may be review papers.  As for those books, the Burrows one has roughly two pages describing ARTS in a chapter “Microwave emission, absorption, and scattering” section “Simulation software”.  It can be found on Google Books.  The Herbin book only mentions ARTS in a table suspicious familiar to the Wikipedia table at Atmospheric radiative transfer codes.  Mätzler spends several pages like Burrows, see Google Books, and describes aspects of it elsewhere in the book.  It's an old source, though, and information is out of date.  I'm not sure what that implies for notability; on the one hand, it is an independent confirmation that ARTS was/is “relevant”; on the other hand, it's not optimal as a source for information on the model. --Gerrit CUTEDH 23:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

hello
Hi Rebbing, just furrying up your talkpage Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Awwww, cuuute! Thanks, Coola! I haven't been on Wikipedia so much lately, but I very much appreciate the fur. Rebb ing  10:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * no probs::) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

chrissy greetings



 * Squee!—this is just too cute (and such a handsome cat). Thank you!  Rebb  ing  19:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rebbing

 * Thank you for the compliment and well wishes, . Happy New Year! Rebb  ing  17:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Per your edit to the Template talk:Infobox person discussion, I found you to be knowledgeable on the usage and ins and outs of infoboxes. Unrelated to the discussion at hand, but I seem to recall at some point running across information that the use of "small" was discouraged within infoboxes, in that all font should be of the same size. I can't seem to find that information now though. Do you have any insight here? Thanks in advance! GauchoDude (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * : Thank you; I'm flattered!


 * Sure thing! Manual of Style for Accessibility § Text gives: "Reduced font sizes should be used sparingly. Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size (or 11px)." Rebb  ing  17:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it, I knew I asked the right person! Thanks for the help!  GauchoDude (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Amber Heard and "biased information"
Hi Rebbing,

maintaining biased information is a veiled way of cultivating ignorance and wrong judgments

Best regards

babyallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Whitewashing a biography of a well-publicized marriage and divorce, adding poorly-sourced trivia, or replacing citations to respectable publications with references to tabloids are not acceptable ways of countering bias on Wikipedia. Rebb  ing  15:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Rebbing The guardian and the interview with the LAPD are reliable sources even you cited The Guardian So with the interview with the police officer who arrested Amber Heard for DV. Manipulating information as you are doing opens up gaps for opportunists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your wording about Ms. Heard's relationship with Ms. Van Ree was problematic in at least two ways. None of the sources you used established that their relationship was "troubled." More importantly, we often avoid reporting criminal charges that are dismissed. This is a matter of fairness, since an arrest doesn't prove guilt but may tarnish a person's image. Rebb  ing  17:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Rebbing


 * The arrest happened and it was by physical aggression. So much so that a police officer arrested her, the case was dismissed only because Tasya did not want to press charges.


 * But the arrest happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * An arrest is not proof of guilt. You appear to believe that it proves Ms. Heard behaved aggressively, but that is not an assumption we are permitted to make in articles. See WP:BLPCRIME ("A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."). Rebb  ing  19:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Rebbing, of course an arrest by a police officer who was the eyewitnessed, yes, it is a proof that Amber is guilt, but i didn't say she was charged I said she was arrested by an eyewitnessef police officer.

And this excerpt about Amber "but Heard, wishing to protect Depp, stated to them that it was a "verbal dispute only", isn't biased? How do you know Heard was protecting Johnny? If she was lying, as LAPD didn't see ANY injury on her face, so it seems to be a lie, so if she was lying, she was trying to harm him and not to protect. So, isn't it biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said, Wikipedia presumes arrestees are innocent until conviction. I'm not going to debate the point further.


 * I'm not sure how the second example is supposed to be biased. The L.A. Times article weakly supports the contention that Ms. Heard was trying to protect Mr. Depp: "Heard's lawyers . . . contend that Heard's reticence to reveal the abuse to police stemmed from a wish to protect her own privacy and Depp's career." However, I agree that it's questionable: it appears we are portraying Ms. Heard's retroactive assessment, given through her lawyers, as her actual motivation for saying that the dispute was only verbal. But I'm not familiar enough with that section to take a firm stand. Instead, I encourage you to raise your concerns on the article's talk page. Free advice: Raise one point at a time and stay on topic. Avoid raving about manipulation and bias—a sure way to be dismissed. Read this section of the talk page help and learn about section placement, indentation, and signing. Cheers. Rebb  ing  22:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There're many articles that didn't express their opinion on this fact, because, the sentence that Amber was wishing to protect Johnny, is just an opinion which can lead a reader to wrong interpretation even tarnishing the image of Johnny


 * So you are tarnishing an image with an opinion but you can't show a fact, that Amber was arrested because it could tarnish her image?


 * What you're doing is manipulation of facts and it is at least wrong


 * And I added the court docs to show the police report saying they didn't see any crime, so they didn't see any injury. Amber said she was hit on her eyebrow, so if it was true, the LAPD would have seen it.


 * And this excerpt is another way to manipulate the public opinion


 * "but was forced to do so due to "the vicious false and malicious allegations [by Depp's team] that have infected the media".[69]


 * By Depp's team???


 * Isn't it a biased opinion???


 * There's any proof about it?


 * Sorry, but what you're doing is wrong.


 * I'm a woman too and know we have to help us to get equidity but I prefer to get it with fair choices and I don't want to use other people as an instrument for it


 * Johnny, for example, is a man who is wearing for years safety pins earrings that mean he's against any prejudice and by many people who met him they always say he's very kind with all and has helped many


 * He seems to be a kind person, so to use and destroy someone like him is a sad thing to all of us who need more and more people with a good heart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote you use is introduced as what Ms. Heard's lawyers claimed; we aren't saying that Mr. Depp's attorneys have "infected the media" with "vicious false and malicious allegations." It's proven by the source—Variety—which attributes those words to two of Ms. Heard's attorneys. Whether its inclusion is neutral is another matter, and I do not know enough to weigh in on that question.


 * That aside, I do not appreciate your accusations, particularly when it's clear you don't have a clue what you're going on about. Therefore, I ask that you please take these concerns somewhere else. Thank you. Rebb  ing  20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are being biased because there are several articles that do not make the reference that you are exhibiting. This is manipulation because it only points to an opinion and not to a fact


 * And horrible may be just what they already prove to be, horrible, so I rely on facts and not on opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyallis (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't have anything to do with writing the content you allege is manipulative, and I will not be taking further abuse on this subject from you. I've told you what you can do if you want to pursue the matter. Rebb  ing  17:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

IP making BLP violations on a talk page
Hi Rebbing. I removed part of the IPs question since it was a BLP violation. --Malerooster (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SafeCharge draft
Hi there, we've worked to improve the page based on all previous feedback. This includes removing any copy that might come across as advertising or promoting the company, along with adding in more notable sources about the company.

Would be great to hear any feedback on this if this version is declined.

All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewStocker (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * : You've made some real progress—congratulations! I looked through the sources again—good job fixing your references—and it appears you've likely got enough coverage to establish notability. I'm going to leave it in the AFC queue for another reviewer to examine, but I took the liberty of cleaning up the lead to make it more encyclopedic. Cheers. Rebb  ing  16:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * : Hi Rebbing, thanks for this. Trying hard to get better at this. Should I continue waiting for the draft to be accepted by someone else? If you have time would you mind checking over again? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewStocker (talk • contribs) 09:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lana Zakocela
Hi Rebbing

I can see you have edited many times the page of model Lana Zakocela. Why had it been allowed that Christoperbarnes has edited out her age and date of birth? I thought wiki was not an advert but a user platform as reference. Just my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotelgolfd (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A simple request
A few points:


 * Your arguments in favor of the "manbulge" and "No Reason Boner" additions belong, if anywhere, on article talk pages or content noticeboards (e.g., OR/N, RS/N), not repeated out of context and with needless animosity here.


 * The verifiability policy doesn't require that the target article of No Reason Boner—NSFW (album)—contain a citation for the fact that the album contains a song by that name in order to be so targeted. If you think that something about erections is a more legitimate target of that title (and in title case—No Reason Boner—not sentence case, as is our convention), you're free to build consensus at RFD.


 * As for the remainder of your remarks, I feel no need to defend myself against such a baseless, pompous wall of text.

This conversation is over, and I encourage you to spend your energy in a more constructive fashion.

Rebb ing  03:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete sources content next time without checking first. I did the checks before I worked on it, something you seemed to have missed. If you do, at least prove an explanation. 92.2.67.128 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I explained in my edit summary why I reverted you. Your additions, while possibly made in good faith ("Manbulge"?), clearly violates Wikipedia content policies concerning original research and synthesis, and I didn't need to seek your permission before removing it. Anyway, there's nothing that you could say about your sources that would make them acceptable for this purpose. Rebb  ing  16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have also explained your misapplication of wikipedia's due weight policy on the talk page. 92.2.67.128 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE is inapplicable here. Rebb  ing  16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How many more times are you going to misrepresent wikipedia's policies and guidelines? This time you're misrepresenting WP:NEWSBLOG. Since the writer you cast aspersions on is a professional writer for a newspaper, wikipedia's anti-blog stance does not stand in this case. 92.2.67.128 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your due weight and verifiability violations. I purposefully created a separate heading for your due weight violations because that is a separate matter which I wanted to deal with separately. Since you seem aversive to it I will highlight this paragraph instead. That's because in your other revert on NRB, I feel you also violated undue as well as WP:VERIFIABILITY. That's because the page you redirected it to has zero sources discussing the concept, whereas the previous redirect had at least a couple of surces that could substantiate its usage. All in all extremely poor judgement on your part I feel. Equally disturbing is how you casually describe the new redirect as "more appropriate" despite the fact that the new redirect is reference-wise a non-entity. Therefore I urge you that in future edits, you (a) check google news, (b) check google books, and do at least some minimum checks before lodging implausible edits as you have done today. Also, it would help if you could link to specific anchors on policy/guideline pages so I know what aspect of the policy you're speaking about. Am I supposed to do a 30 minute reading of a wall of text each time we have a policy interpretation disagreement? Your general editing style is extremely annoying. 92.2.67.128 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you have not replied, let me be a bit more direct. Are you going to take to heart suggestions that you be a little more speficic when citing policies (or in general), or are you going to continue to assume that your fellow Wikipedians have a crystal ball that allow them to insinuate Rebbing's intentions by peeking into Rebbing brain like some fortune-tellers? 92.2.67.128 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Help With BookMyShow
Could you please help me moving this article to mainspace or probably tell me how could I improve this to be able to move? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BookMyShow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * : The problem appears to be a lack of notability, which is not something you can fix. Ordinarily, you can bypass the Articles for Creation process by moving a page yourself, but the article title BookMyShow has been marked so that only an administrator can create it. You could ask the protecting administrator,, but, based on this article's history, you'd most likely be wasting your time. Rebb  ing  13:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the thanks





 * Thanks for bunnies, . :D I loved the lapine participation and the closer's assessment of it. When I read your comment, "Have asked some bunnies whether this article is notable, most eat carrots and lettuce . . . ," I pictured you asking the bunnies and each one just looking up at you while loudly munching carrots and lettuce instead of answering. Rebb  ing  14:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

FJC Bios
Hi! I'm wondering how you were able to determine the "nid" for Judge Joan Larsen's FJC bio link, such as here:

I would like to know your method so I can use it on other articles. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, ! Just open the page's source and look for s. Rebb  ing  23:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hi, are you fixing all the recent disruptions by User:Cesarromero? If so, I'll move on to other things. MB 20:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think I got it all, but I'm done for today. If you've got time, it wouldn't hurt to go over it again and make sure I didn't miss anything. I left some of his cleanup tags where I thought they might be defensible, but, if I'd realized from the start how much he'd done, I would have reverted everything. Thanks.  Rebb  ing  20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a few this morning but would rather work on other things. I noticed some other editors de-prodded but didn't revert all the changes - so I restored to the version before this editor did anything. It sounds like you are being thorough. MB 20:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The notability, based on the parameters I've read for Wiki entries, is very questionable, if not clearly lacking any legitimate notability.

"Does not meet WP:NACTOR. His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Multiple recaps of his witness testimony in a trial amount to nothing, notability-wise. Wikipedia is not for promotion, marketing, or public relations."

That's interesting because I can go through numerous listings on here that have absolutely nothing indicating notability. Especially when referencing people in the entertainment industry. They are obvious self-promotions. I was able to prove, to several people, that many Wiki entries are NOT accurate or legitimate in many cases but will sit on here for ages with nothing done to address that. I could pretty much 'drop a pencil' on any person, in the entertainment industry with bit or small parts and they would be listed on here. I can give you dozens of examples. However, you might study your own guidelines:

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:


 * 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Please DO delete that Draft as I have proven my point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Thank you for your note.


 * Nowhere did I say that the subjects of the articles in question were notable. I suspect many are not, and I'm on record as being in favor of a hard-nosed application of our notability guidelines. That said, your cleanup efforts were problematic ("disruptive," in Wikipedia parlance) in several ways:


 * Many of your nominations reflected a poor understanding of the guidelines and a failure to conduct a thorough search for sources. Notability isn't determined by the state of the article but by available coverage.
 * Your removal of potentially-useful sources and your addition of new cleanup tags backdated to make articles appear as if they'd been long neglected was deceptive.
 * Based on your history as well as your comment above, it's clear that your tagging spree was done to prove a point. See WP:POINT for the guideline forbidding such behavior.
 * The sheer number of articles you tagged and the rate at which you did so further reinforces the idea that you did not do your homework and that you were merely trying to prove a point, likely in frustration at having your AFC submission rejected on notability grounds.

As you requested, I marked your draft for deletion. Rebb ing  23:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Miaow, miaow.
Peek-a-boo kitty!! These are all too cute,. Thank you. My talk page looks much better now. Rebb ing

Wesley L. Fox
There are sources that say Lt. Fox has passed away. Aside from the Category of Living People, I was under the impression the article assumed he had passed. The link following my commentary is where I found my information. Death reference Snickers2686 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * : Thank you for your cordial note. I was looking at a stale version of the article, and I assumed there still weren't any reliable sources reporting his death. I should have been more diligent before reverting; I've restored your changes, and I apologize for the inconvenience.  Rebb  ing  00:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Harassment
Stop harassing me and vandalizing wikipedia or you will be banned.96.31.10.178 (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's really not how this works. Rebb  ing  20:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure from this that this rather confused IP must be a sock of a user/IP (probably a user given this) blocked slightly before the date and time of that edit. There's nothing obvious to me that links the users (including myself) who've had this recent talk page spew. I wonder what's going on? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me to the IP's recent activity. It appears he's trying to have some fun at my expense: the "No, you're the vandal!" game is not new, but this is a variation I had not yet encountered. Rebb  ing  01:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Melania Trump
Thanks for the information about the "birther" trolls at that talk page. You are certainly correct about the four IPs who made a few edits each; they are obviously the same person. I am keeping a note about this whole situation in case it needs action in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ho, ho, ho



 * ::giggles:: Thank you,, and a merry Christmas to you too! I love her—direct descendant or not! Rebb  ing  13:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism
Thanks kid, I’ve been on Wikipedia for a long time and that the first time I was ever vandalized.

Who vandalizes a Talk Page? And wtf is a ‘nonce’?

Peace be the Botendaddy Botendaddy 01:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * : You're welcome, and I wouldn't take it personally: it was part of a vandalism spree, not someone following you.
 * I assumed he meant a non-entity, but Wiktionary says lists this for nonce:


 * I learned something new. Cheers. Rebb  ing  12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Section link
Just so you know, the smarts of Template:Section link have been updated. You don't have to pipe any more, and this will work fine:. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ooh—I like it! Thanks for letting me know.  I also like the new display parameter. Now, if only it could automatically hide a leading colon... ;)  Rebb  ing  13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the point of your questions
Hi Rebbing. Sorry to have not answered your question in a manner that you like. Perhaps we could spend some time here discussing the matter, before adding to an already lengthy tangent at WT:BLP? I realize you might not want to discuss it, but I at least want you to know that I'm trying.

Why your question? How would it change the outcome of the discussion, helping us improve the policy? What distinctions are you trying to make?

If someone pointed out that a specific birth date was an important part of someone's biography, or at least the stories about a person, why would it matter? --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Merry Chrismouse:)

 * Arla (8307338159).jpg

Hi, hope you have a great festive season. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Heart pain listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heart pain. Since you had some involvement with the Heart pain redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Jewel (singer) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Jewel (singer), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- wooden superman  09:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays

 * Appalachian Bewildered Cat.jpg (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)]]

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hey Rebecca! I'm Rebecca from 🇮🇳 India. Just passing by......Nice to meet you. I'm feeling so excited to call my own name here ^_^

He@ven's Queent@lk 11:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 13 July 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin A revert
My Edit summary was supposed to be that U.S. gov't documents capitalize these terms. Hence, capitalized in all of the vitamin and mineral articles I have edited. David notMD (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for your explanation. Did you have any objection to my adding the missing punctuation to these sentences?
 * and:
 * or the normalizing of the infinitives in:
 * and:
 * As for the capitalization, Wikipedia's manual of style doesn't defer to any single source, no matter how official: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. . . . Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." MOS:CAPS (emphasis in original). A brief survey of independent, reliable sources shows that the National Academy of Medicine's terms "recommended dietary allowance," "adequate intake," and "tolerable upper intake level" are not consistently capitalized:
 * New U.S. Recommendations Released on Vitamins, (Reuters), Jan. 10, 2001 (lowercasing "recommended daily allowance" and "adequate intake").
 * Yan Bai et al., Global Variation in the Cost of a Nutrient-adequate Diet by Population Group, 6 e19 (2022) (lowercasing "recommended dietary allowance" and "dietary reference intake").
 * Supplements May Have Too Much Manganese, (Reuters), Feb. 3, 2001 (lowercasing "recommended daily allowance," "adequate intake," and "tolerable upper intake levels").
 * That you have edited certain articles doesn't supersede Wikipedia's established style guidelines: please review WP:OWN.
 * Accordingly, I suggest that you revert yourself and endeavor to follow our established style in any other articles you edit. Rebb  ing  15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose the abovementioned punctuation changes. I am aware that "dietary reference intake, recommended daily allowance, estimated average requirement, adequate intake" and "tolerable upper intake levels" are not consistantly capitalized across all publications, but am of the opinion that when US government site such as https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/nutrientrecommendations.aspx capitalize, that is enough support. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I've restored that part of my edit.
 * Your opinion is contrary to the consensus emphatically reflected in our manual of style. Wikipedia has long disapproved of and avoided unnecessary capitalization, even when such is frequently used by the sources, especially technical publications. Many publications also use title casing when a term is an acronym, but we do not. (This 2011 VPP discussion has some background.) Perhaps you'd like to suggest that that be changed such that we instead defer to the capitalization used in U.S. government publications? Or do you think that your personal preference already trumps our established consensus? (I have my own quibbles with our style guide.) I believe that you are the primary author of the article and were responsible for bringing it through GA review; perhaps our manual of style ought to defer to you on that account? Rebb  ing  18:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Accordingly, I suggest that you revert yourself and endeavor to follow our established style in any other articles you edit. Rebb  ing  15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose the abovementioned punctuation changes. I am aware that "dietary reference intake, recommended daily allowance, estimated average requirement, adequate intake" and "tolerable upper intake levels" are not consistantly capitalized across all publications, but am of the opinion that when US government site such as https://ods.od.nih.gov/HealthInformation/nutrientrecommendations.aspx capitalize, that is enough support. David notMD (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I've restored that part of my edit.
 * Your opinion is contrary to the consensus emphatically reflected in our manual of style. Wikipedia has long disapproved of and avoided unnecessary capitalization, even when such is frequently used by the sources, especially technical publications. Many publications also use title casing when a term is an acronym, but we do not. (This 2011 VPP discussion has some background.) Perhaps you'd like to suggest that that be changed such that we instead defer to the capitalization used in U.S. government publications? Or do you think that your personal preference already trumps our established consensus? (I have my own quibbles with our style guide.) I believe that you are the primary author of the article and were responsible for bringing it through GA review; perhaps our manual of style ought to defer to you on that account? Rebb  ing  18:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 13 July 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)