User talk:Rhododendrites/2013b

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Atheism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Ball
Thanks for your remarks while deleting my edit to Climate Change Denial. I'm trying to surface anybody active in suppressing information about Timothy Ball. Good articles on Timothy ball exist in other WP languages, but articles in the English WP are deleted by unknown persons. Santamoly (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is where you added only the following to the Climate change denial article (rather than the talk page):
 * "(The WP article on Dr.Ball has been repeatedly deleted by climate change supporters, but he still appears on Spanish WP at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball)"
 * Are you interpreting my removal of the above [seemingly intentionally disruptive] comment as equivalent to "suppressing information about Timothy Ball?" You could have made the same change but replaced "Timothy Ball" with "sand" and I still would have removed it as disruptive. Perhaps because of a conspiracy to suppress information about sand? --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Israel-Saudi Arabian relations
I added in the conflict between Judaism and Islam in that page becuase it is a major reason why Israel and Saudi Arabia avoid each orther and in a lot of ways, are hostile with each other, much like relations between Israel and most other Arab countries. It;s a historically proven gfact. I think it should be include. Maybe I could reword it, but it needs to be included because it's basically part of the back story between the hatred this two counties have for each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.64.15 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * The reason I removed it wasn't because I think you're wrong but instead because a serious statement such as the one you added per Wikipedia rules like Verifiability needs to be accompanied by a reliable source. If it is historically proven -- a fact that I am not debating -- finding such a source should be relatively easy. If you have no done so before, you can find some help citing sources at this page. If you go into your Special:Preferences, click the "Gadgets" tab, and enable "ProveIt," a box will appear while you're editing that makes it very easy to include a source. Hope that helps. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Students of Pakistan
Hello. I see that you have placed a tag for deletion on the page I created. You have commented that it is not notable although I have cited all the references. It is a registered NGO in Pakistan under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies Ordinance 1961. It is also recognized as a national funding agency by two major universities of Pakistan. It has sponsored and organized many events, conferences and activities in Pakistan and outside Pakistan. Please kindly check the official website of Students of Pakistan for pictures and its activities. Pictures of the activities could also be found on the facebook page of Students of Pakistan http://www.facebook.com/studentsofpakistan.

I hope you consider this page again and lift the tag for deletion. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehmansiddiq (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I placed the Conflict of Interest tag on your page (see the page WP:COI for more information), but it was User:Smsarmad who added the deletion tag. There is a place for discussion of these sorts of deletions you may wish to contribute to: Articles for deletion/Students of Pakistan. The rules that dictate when something is "notable" enough to have an article on Wikipedia are here: WP:Notability and, specifically, Notability (organizations and companies). Please don't take its nomination for deletion as a judgment that it is not important. It's just that Wikipedia has specific rules to remain objective. These rules require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" like articles in major newspapers or magazines, profiles in books, and a variety of other things. I hope you'll add your thoughts to the deletion discussion. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting some advice for editing Pseudoscience article
Hello, I'm very new to being an actual Wikipedia user and not just someone coming here to look things up. I've tried adding the feminist social theory of patriarchy (aka. patriarchy theory) to the list of pseudosciences in the article, as so-called patriarchy theory fits in very well with many of the indicators of pseudoscience in the very same article.

The Wikipedia article on Patriarchy that I linked to in my entry does indeed not include the term patriarchy theory, but it does speak of the term patriarchy as it pertains to feminist theory. The article on Patriarchy has this bit of information supporting it: "Sociologist Sylvia Walby has composed six overlapping structures that define patriarchy and that take different forms in different cultures and different times:[40] 1. The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation 2. The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children. 3. Violence: women are more prone to being abused 4. Paid work: women are likely to be paid less 5. Sexuality: Women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively 6. Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture"

"1. The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation." This fails to take into account the fact that women are over half the voting population in most of western civilization. It also seems to me to fall under the "Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible."

"2. The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children." Assuming that this is because of systematic oppression of women by the hands of a male dominated society also falls under the "Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible."

"3. Violence: women are more prone to being abused." This seems just plain statistically false, or at the very least like a use of highly misleading language. A. This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

B. Investigations of domestic violence with the Gramham Kevan method shows gender symmetry.

C. 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion.

D. The CDC's NISVS report of 2010 shows that within the last year, 1.1% of women had been raped and 1.1% of men had be "forced to penetrate (either orally, anally or vaginally)"

"4. Paid work: women are likely to be paid less." The gender pay-gap is based on the comparable worth paradigm and has been thoroughly debunked several times.

"5. Sexuality: Women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively." Quite the contrary in the western world where female sexuality is more likely to be celebrated and male sexuality demonized.

"6. Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture" Just as with sexuality, it's quite the opposite way around in western media and popular culture.

I know I've not yet supplied references for those last two points, I'll do this once I've had some much needed sleep.

All in all I can see why you reverted my changes and find it quite reasonable, which is why I'm asking for some advice on how to sufficiently reference the change I wish to make. Do I need to first edit the article on patriarchy to go in depth with the criticism of patriarchy theory and THEN add it to the pseudoscience article with references to said criticisms? Thank you kindly in advance. -- 08:11, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The easiest answer I can give you is that the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience relies on cited secondary sources that not only criticize points of view but specifically call it pseudoscience (and usually multiple sources). It isn't enough to have sources discounting claims. Aside from the e.g. genetic aspect you mention I think (though I don't know) that it would be unlikely to find many people calling this aspect of feminist theory "pseudoscience" in the technical sense of the word mainly because the philosophical, critical-cultural sense of "theory" ("feminist theory," "critical theory," "media theory," etc.) isn't the same as the scientific sense of, for example, the "theory of evolution," "plate tectonics theory," or "germ theory." You'll find it's extremely rare that something is on that list without the point of view that it's pseudoscience being present on its main article page.
 * If you feel the article on Patriarchy is skewed, that would be the better venue for it. I'd strongly recommend using the Talk page before making significant changes, though. Articles such as that one likely suffer a great deal from people coming by and adding their opinions without citing sources -- often in an intentionally offensive way. What to expect: Using the talk page will open up a dialogue on your proposed changes, on the sources themselves, on how best to present them, on how to balance different points of view, etc. Talk pages also have "archives," linked near the top of the page. You might consider skimming through those, too, since it's possible and I would say even likely some of these specific issues have come up in the past.
 * Sorry if that's not quite the answer you were looking for. Hope it helps, though. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thank you very much, this explains a great deal.
 * Cordovan Splotch (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

In regards to LokiTorrent edits
Feel free to do a little research before making baseless accusations. I live in a completely different country than Edward Webber. I happened to work with him a few years back. He kept the information that he was Lowkee from LokiTorrents pretty close to the vest because he knew people were looking for him. Why in the world, if as you say, I am Edward Webber, would I link to my own LinkedIn profile? After stealing thousands of dollars from people donating to my "legal fund." It makes no sense. His LinkedIn profile is the only publicly available information about him and I feel that anyone researching him or his history should have access to that information. I'm fairly sure that's what a reference is.

I'm adding the reference to his LinkedIn profile so that people can be aware of his history when considering hiring him. The company that we worked at together, well, let's just say he made some command decisions and that million dollar business is now basically gone.

You've vaguely mentioned that the LinkedIn reference violates rules, however, you don't mention specifically which part of the various rules you've brought up. Please feel free to explain which rule I've violated (not vague reference to pages of rules that are a mile long) and I will review it and determine if I agree with your assessment. Otherwise, I'll keep undoing your changes as I feel the reference I've added is valid.

Since you refuse to do the "reading" you've assigned me, let me do a little for you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki racer (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You say to search the RS noticeboard for linkedin. FYI, linkedin isn't mentioned once from what I see.
 * You say to look at Reliable sources. I don't believe anyone would deem LinkedIn to be unreliable.  It's pretty hard to lie about your work experience when it's accessible by anyone.
 * You mention Questionable sources but I don't find any mention of LinkedIn being questionable.


 * Hi. Ok, so...
 * Feel free to do a little research before making baseless accusations. I live in a completely different country than Edward Webber.  I happened to work with him a few years back.  He kept the information that he was Lowkee from LokiTorrents pretty close to the vest because he knew people were looking for him.  Why in the world, if as you say, I am Edward Webber, would I link to my own LinkedIn profile?  After stealing thousands of dollars from people donating to my "legal fund."  It makes no sense.
 * I'm not sure what kind of research I would be doing. I advised someone named "Loki Racer" editing the article "LokiTorrent," which is run by someone named "Loki" to read WP:SELFPROMOTE. I don't think that's a crazy connection to make, but if you're not him, well, I have no way of verifying one way or the other. It's not an accusation so much as a duly suspect "making sure you know this one," since many people don't. People add links to their own LinkedIn, FaceBook, websites, etc. constantly on Wikipedia, hence the need for policies on self-promotion and conflict of interest.
 * His LinkedIn profile is the only publicly available information about him and I feel that anyone researching him or his history should have access to that information. I'm fairly sure that's what a reference is. I'm adding the reference to his LinkedIn profile so that people can be aware of his history when considering hiring him.  The company that we worked at together, well, let's just say he made some command decisions and that million dollar business is now basically gone.
 * I assume by publicly available information about him you mean something along the lines of his personal information, resume, etc. which isn't at all relevant to LokiTorrent. Whether you feel people should have access to the information isn't relevant. People think the world should have access to all sorts of things. Phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, etc. are often public knowledge, too. That doesn't make them appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The article isn't even about Webber, and if it were, this is not the right place for "attention potential employers!" Again, encyclopedia...not headhunting service. Also, a reference is a source that backs up what's written in the article. There is nothing in the article that LinkedIn backs up, and even if it were considered reliable it would be insufficient as a lone, primary, self-published source.
 * You say to search the RS noticeboard for linkedin. FYI, linkedin isn't mentioned once from what I see.
 * noticeboard archive search - but this is less important than below
 * You say to look at Reliable sources. I don't believe anyone would deem LinkedIn to be unreliable.  It's pretty hard to lie about your work experience when it's accessible by anyone.
 * First line of the Overview section: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." LinkedIn is not third party and has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * Under Self Published Sources: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."
 * While we're at it...
 * From Links normally to be avoided
 * "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
 * "Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."
 * "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article."
 * I'm going to go ahead and assume that's specific enough. It's really truly not controversial that LinkedIn isn't appropriate to throw into an encyclopedia article about a torrent site. It's not personal and has nothing to do with the site, you, or Webber. If you disagree I hope you will start a discussion on the talk page of any of those policy/guideline pages, or even start a new thread on the Noticeboard (if the consensus there is that you're right, that's that...but I assure you that wouldn't be the case. (Again, not trying to be a jerk). --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cryptids
As a formed caretaker of the page I agree with your proposals and would welcome them. I would also direct you to Againme who was the previous caretaker as he may have some ideas.
 * - Thanks. FYI I just made an edit or two to List of cryptids earlier today. Feedback/changes welcome, of course. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Media bias
What "forum"? I am directly commenting on the content in the article, which distracts from the topic of corporate ownership. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reason I reverted your edits was because they seemed to be talking about the subject of media bias rather than how to improve the article itself. It's not that you're talking about a forum; it's that Wikipedia shouldn't be usedi n the same way as one would a forum (i.e. to discuss the subject). The WP:NOT page puts it most clearly, I think:
 * "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use IRC channels."
 * If you were proposing specific changes to the article and I perhaps misinterpreted, I apologize and by all means undo my undo. Generally, though, it's best to keep those discussions off of talk pages (lest they turn into thousands of people debating the subject without improving the article). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring directly to the section "Scholarly treatment of media bias in the United States and United Kingdom" which very briefly touches upon corporate ownership, but then goes off on a liberal vs. conservative tangent for the rest of the section. It also cites highly biased scholars who do not have this subject as their primary field and who favor one viewpoint over another rather than disinterested scholars who have an expertise in media and/or journalism. The article does not have a coherent focus and ironically obscures the bias of the so-called scholars by presenting them as typical disinterested academics when they are grinding axes. In other words, the media bias article is biased. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for clarifying. I self-reverted. I'm maybe a little sensitive to talk page forum stuff from hanging out on pseudoscience and religious article talk pages a lot lately. :) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but from my reading on the subject, corporate ownership of the media can lead to actual bias, such as having certain stories declared off-topic, or having completed stories pulled or if published, retracted by the publisher, and even having journalists fired. Contrasting with this demonstrable bias is perceived bias, which we find being pushed by axe grinders who don't like the fact that homosexuality isn't condemned, that unions aren't criticized, and that consumerism isn't worshiped as a religion, etc.  Often times when we hear the term "liberal bias" in the states, this is code for "you can't criticize America" or "don't criticize rich people" or "how dare poor people get food stamps" or "I have a right to carry my gun anywhere I want and shoot anyone I want".  In my experience, the real problem in the American media isn't "liberal bias", it's disinformation, which has no political bias in and of itself.  Even though other media outlets have the same problems, when I listen to the BBC or even CBC, I actually come away learning something.  When I listen to US media outlets, I feel like I'm being dumbed down and having something "sold" to me by a used car salesman. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you on most of the above, including the condition of the article. Media bias in the United States has a more comprehensive picture of the things you're talking about FYI. The fact of the matter is you're not going to be able to get away from including accusations of "liberal media" due to it being such a common conservative meme and one of the biggest subjects within an article on media bias -- although sources could also be cited countering the claims. I'd urge you to giving some revisions a go. Be glad to help if I can. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Baltimore Orioles minor league players
I appreciate the eyes, but in this case the IP is right. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you caught it. Thanks for the message. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Malinaccier ( talk ) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * - Thanks very much. I've been looking through the various help pages and feel pretty comfortable, but will exercise caution certainly. Thanks again. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  22:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I've discovered it's best not to do too much work on an article during the AfD, it gives more options post-AFD in case it closed delete, and anyway this is currently an angry crowd (over paid editors), they don't care too much about the reliable sources wherever they may be listed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

wow
Saw your request for instructor rights and decided to look at your user page. Fantastic. This is how an instructor's user page should look! Dloh cierekim  22:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this user page or the one I linked to in the request? Well, I guess it doesn't actually matter too much since my response is "thanks!" either way. :) --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  23:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Must be the other one. Dloh cierekim  00:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversies?
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please refrain from making unproductive blanking edits without discussion. If you have a position to state please engage in dialogue and consensus building. Please identify your position. on the Talk:Chess.comDeceptobot67 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I removed a poorly sourced (single-sourced) paragraph on a company page about a former employee's gripes about his former employer. Non-notable, undue, and all sorts of other problems with that. Warning disingenuously is not a tactic that typically yields results, FYI. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Chess.com, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Deceptobot67 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is obviously a content dispute so the vandal warning is inappropriate. However, I remind both users that they appear to be edit warring and are in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. The matter needs to be settled via a consensus seeking discussion on the article talk page. If that is not helpful, you can request a 3rd opinion or request a request for comment. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - take it to Talk:Chess.com. per WP:BRD the burden is on you to take it to discussion, not the [R]everter. At this point you are edit warring, and, as there's no way my edits could be interpreted as vandalism, future warnings constitute harassment. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:59, 10 December

2013 (UTC)
 * You still made 3 reverts in 14 minutes. It's to the right version, but you still need to be careful. Dark Sun (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history at Chess.com ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dloh cierekim  19:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the edits and/or discussion? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Both of you
Please step away from the article. You both need to not edit the article for 24 hours from now. Seek dispute resolution. Work it out amongst yourselves. If all else fails, discuss it WP:AN/I Dloh cierekim  20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I undid per BRD, he put it back in with an irrelevant edit summary, warned me, I reverted once clarifying and took it to the talk page, he reverted again. On what grounds are you using your administrator rights to stop me from editing this article? There is nothing controversial about any of my edits. I removed poorly sourced, insane accusations, then removed them again and you're acting as though I've (a) violated the 3RR or (b) was not making an attempt to resolve it in (now 3) talk pages. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Three reverts in 14 minutes - that's definitely edit warring, even if it is to the right version. Dark Sun (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, did you even look at the edits?
 * 14:48, 10 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-374)‎ . . Chess.com ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Deceptobot67 (talk): His field is complaining about his job? no. his expertise is irrelevant to this. (TW))
 * 14:38, 10 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-374)‎ . . Chess.com ‎ (→‎Controversies: without more sources, there's not much precedent to include grumblings of an ex-coworker on company pages)
 * 14:34, 10 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-264)‎ . . Chess.com ‎ (→‎Controversies: regarding legal actions of a living person -- need sources)
 * First was not related (see edit summary and the edit). Second was the initial removal. Third was the revert. The end. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They're partial reverts, which count as reverts. Still the right version. Dark Sun (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but for an admin to jump in, to look at those three edits, and to instruct me to stop editing? Seriously? --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  20:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What drew my attention to this was the vandal warnings on your talk page. As you are an instructor, I found it doubtful that you were vandalizing articles. 3 reverts in 24 hours is clearly an edit war. This is a content dispute that perpetually reverting one another will not resolve. You need to talk it out amongst yourselves, request a 3rd opinion from say, Dark Suns, seek a consensus on the talk page, go through the conflict resolution process. What must not do is continue to edit war. Dloh cierekim  20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and since you can be pretty sure I wasn't vandalizing, the messages must have been either a misunderstanding or spurious. A brief look at the three edits show that it's hardly a typical edit war, and regardless there are only but those three -- which, since they deal with separate content I wouldn't even call three reverts for the purposes of 3RR. Meanwhile and afterwards I'm talking about it here and on the article talk page. Pardon me if I got a little overdefensive but it seems a warning and instruction not to edit the page further -- as though I actually violated the 3RR or as though I had any pattern of disruptive editing in the past -- is both unnecessary and uncalled for. Further adding to the frustration is a sock puppeteer, Wiki brah, who has created countless socks to disrupt, denigrate, and lobby for the deletion of the Chess.com article, only fairly recently caught but still creating accounts (see the talk page for more) -- and, I don't know if you have checkuser rights, I would be willing to bet Deceptobot is he -- and I do hate to see abusers find their tactics (e.g. the warnings placed here) fruitful. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Followup: Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah
 * Indeed. If it returns, don't violate 3RR. When you have fed 'em enough rope, do as you did-- SSI. And/Or drop a note on my talk page letting me know an old problem has returned. Now that I've met it twice, I won't forget it. Thanks Dloh  cierekim  22:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just email me and leave a note on my talk page for a sensitive matter. Cheers, Dloh  cierekim  22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

partial page protection?
what's your pleasure? Dloh cierekim  19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not yet. It's just a minor annoyance to remove them at this point. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  02:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Holly Warlick
Are you still working on Holly Warlick? Your last edit needs work.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not working on it at all. Was looking for recent vandalism, noticed someone removed a block of content with no explanation, and undid. Feel free to undo again if the IP's removal was the right move. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just realized what happened. I thought you were adding the template, and did it wrong. Someone else messed it up. I'll clean it up.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

About My Edits at Creationism' Talkpage
I deleted both of the Troll for Jesus' threads at Talk:Creationism as, as the boilerplate and you say, talkpages are for discussing how to improve the page, and such trolls are not there to discuss how to improve the page beyond yelling and whining about how unfair and horrible it is that Wikipedia isn't a gallery of anti-science propaganda for Jesus. I find it best to nip such situations in the bud in order to prevent the Trolls for Jesus from wasting everyone's time with excruciatingly long whinefests.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Np. I almost did the same thing. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  23:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Double Standards
Hi, Rhododendrites

I havunconstrure edits to the July Revolution page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Revolution)than I did on the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and yet you did not send me a message about the edits I made to the July Revolution page. If the Federal Reserve were legal, you wouldn't be sending me a message about the fact that I changed the word legal to illegal. Why didn't you comment on the changes I made to the July Revolution page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.115.253 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe he did not see them or did not see them as unconstructive. Are you now saying they should have been reverted? I'm confused. At any rate, the edit that Rhododendrites reverted was non constructive. Dloh cierekim  23:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - I'm not sure I understand your logic. If it were legal I'd ignore you changing it to say it's illegal? That doesn't seem like a good practice for an encyclopedia. I didn't comment on other changes you've made because I'm not following all of the changes you make on Wikipedia. I use a program that scans recent changes by all users to all articles, looking for vandalism. You vandalized the page for Federal Reserve, the program caught it, and I undid it. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So you sent me a message because my edit was non constructive, not because it wasn't truthful(which it was)? I thought Wikipedia would sent messages to those who post dishonest edits, not because it was non constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.115.253 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2013‎


 * Well you're talking about three different things: Truth, honesty, and constructiveness. Wikipedia operates according to a body of rules and norms for how content is created and maintained. It largely rests on WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. If the consensus among reliable sources is x, you cannot change x because you know x to be false (even if it really is). The way to change it is to find reliable sources that agree with you and use the article talk page to argue that these sources are the best sources--or that the current text doesn't reflect true consensus among the sources. It sounds like bureaucratic hell when written out that way, but it functions in a way that ends up reflecting a broad, properly weighted view of a subject. Wikipedia doesn't declare things true or false -- it just reports on what reliable sources have said about them. That being said, in your case it's easy. If Congress grants the right to do something, it's pretty easy to find sources that would support it being called "legal" and much more difficult otherwise (but you're welcome to try). Disclaimer: I don't follow the Federal Reserve page nor am I an expert, so I'm not looking to have a debate -- that's what the Federal Reserve talk page is for. Thanks. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pointless edit
Please see here Please review your AWB settings. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - that edit is indeed fairly pointless.
 * I decided to use less strict Skip settings when going through my watchlist than when going through a broader list because I frankly like standardized spacing, template names, ordering of elements, etc. So it's set to Skip if only spacing is changed, but that's it. Otherwise it's set to skip if only spacing, only cases, or only minor genfixes are made.
 * When one of the more pointless ones comes up like the on you linked to, I'd still just as soon click save, though. It takes the same amount of time to save as to skip, removes the page as a hit for anybody else using AWB, does (arguably) clean it up in the most negligible of ways, and -- though it in itself isn't a good reason -- certainly doesn't hurt. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  14:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted I understand how it's just as easy for you but it's against the user manual for AWB and it's more work for me. Sometimes, careless (and pointless) AWB editing results in my watchlist getting flooded with revisions that don't require any oversight. If the change is opposed to the user manual and results in no actual change in content, please don't save it. Just hit Skip or Ctrl+I and move along. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)