User talk:Robert K S/Archive02

Rollback on Jeopardy!
Please don't use the standard rollback feature to undo good-faith edits, especially when there's a dispute. Thanks. RJaguar3 | u  |  t  04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain Jeopardy! category
See Talk:Early life and military career of John McCain for my response. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Kilroy-Silk
Is this you?:) Sticky Parkin 02:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro
Per your request, I have fully explained why I tagged the article as I did at Talk:My Neighbor Totoro. And I apologize if my edit summary seemed short. I was annoyed at Beefman's removal of the tags without explanation followed by an insulting message he left on my talk page about it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am entirely ignorant of the subject matter, but I fully support the decision to un-tag some of the contents, especially in light of my recent experiences of Collectonian defying consensus, which this seems to match up to very similarly. I have posted as much on the talk page.JJJ999 (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy template
I am not removing spaces, I am fixing the spaces to make it a little bit middle, not widened. Steam5 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian and Lord S are AfD'ing an article from DBZ again
They didn't even notify the talk page where consensus was just reached, this really is reprehensible. I recall you had input vis manga, so I am notifying you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tien_Shinhan#Tien_Shinhan JJJ999 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Date Format
Thanks - was not aware of that. I've still seen plenty of people making use of it. I don't think anyone mentioned it to anyone. It says it's depreciated, but the functions still work. So what does that mean; just that it's no longer reccomended that you format it, but if you do it will still work? Seems like an odd distinction. TheHYPO (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a positive effort to undo the existing links? That was the major issue I had was that this user was going around undoing dates in all these articles; I know that redirects are considered 'to be avoided', but the policy is also that if you see them, it is more taxing on the server to make an edit simply to change the redirect than it is to leave it. I figure the same policy would apply to dates in that all the queries and database space it takes to make a new edit shouldn't be implimented unless you actually have a constructive edit to include. TheHYPO (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome...
...in regards to the comment you left in re: the Jeopardy! second season set photos I uploaded at Jeopardy! set evolution.

I only wish I had better source video or material to work with, since those images are really crappy.Srosenow 98 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Black McCains
I have nominated Black McCains, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Black McCains. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. -- Suntag  ☼  21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag  ☼  21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (2nd nomination)
Hello. I have managed to get the administrator who closed this AfD as delete to reconsider and relist, and I have offered my own keep rationale. Since you have a clear interest in Jeopardy!, it wouldn't surprise me if you already have at least one of the two books I've mentioned in your possession. But if not, you might want to get them. In either case, you should use them to beef up the sources in this article in the next few days, to help save it from deletion the next time around. DHowell (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Jeopardy!
I removed him because he was in the template twice. Even if he did host and announce, he doesn't need to be listed as both, as it's repetitive repetitive. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect article
My question is does the new source directly support the claim that "strictly speaking"... one cannot be "president-elect"? There appears to be a lot of connecting-the-dots here that are necessary to support that. Just check out the on-going discussion at. Its late and I am retiring for the night, so I'll check back in the morning. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been busy and won't have time to read the new references (if they are accessible) until Tuesday at the earliest. Wish I'd looked at the new editor's addition far sooner than now. At this point my only concern is whether or not the quotes are chosen selectively (possibly ignoring some related opinions). I hope that my judicious use of the scissors doesn't get lambasted, but you never know what to expect.  I'll be back Tuesday. Modocc (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

President elect article
I've reverted your edits twice, though I won't again. I hope we can discuss changes before editing again.LedRush (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I am going to bed now, but perhaps we can talk about this tomorrow?LedRush (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jeopardy! set evolution
I've replied to your message on my talk page. DHowell (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Trebek effect
I see you saved my article. I'm glad its life wasn't completely snuffed-out as I, of course, still feel it has merit. Anyway, thanks for the archive, it was nice to read it again. Grika Ⓣ 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not make up the term, but that is not to say that it wasn't made up; I heard all of the terms from others. I'm still looking for more of an academic term with which to revitalize the article. You can't deny that Trebek Effect has a nice reduplicating ring to it at least. :-) Grika Ⓣ 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution Part Deux
There's a template up now @ the main Jeopardy! talk page in re: the Jeopardy! set evolution article facing a 3rd AfD soon. Keep an eye on it (as I am). I've made my comment on it, feel free to leave one also. Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeopardy! set evolution
Bah, I forgot about that! Restored. Black Kite 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Atanasoff
Hi, I'm currently translating the Atanasoff article for the German wikipedia, since the German article presently is rather short and not too informative. Could you suggest me a method of transferring the picture (John Atanasoff.jpg) to the German wikipedia? Or could you upload it to wikimedia commons; I think it should then be available here also. Curiously enough, the pictures of the ABC replica etc. are visible from the German wikipedia also, so they must reside at a different location... Cheers, Herbert --Klaeren (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sushi Bar revisions
Please see request for editor assistance here. Sottolacqua (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! References
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You are footnoting information that does not cite a reference. I'm simply asking you to include a citable source rather than categorizing original research or unverified claims as references. Including unsourced material does not qualify it as a reference. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Our collective goal should be to make this page less resemble a fansite. By including citable references you will increase the credibility of the information you intend to include. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but what is the point of adding references which don't provide the intended citation? Why add the reference at all? Sottolacqua (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I'm making is that the footnotes you are adding contain information that has not been verified. For example, footnote #9 in the Jeopardy! article:

On the show aired January 19, 1993, Air Force Lt. Col. Daryl Scott won the game with only $1; he won another $13,401 the next day.
 * That's pretty much an anecdote and not really encyclopedic. If it linked to the official site with verifiable information I'd say keep it in. Same goes for ref #6--who's to say that actually started with Jennings's reign as champion? At what point did it start? His first show? Two weeks in?


 * A better way for me to phrase the question might be "Why include anecdotes?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sottolacqua (talk • contribs) 2009-02-10T20:34:00


 * Please stop removing tags. They've been added to increase the verifiability of the article. Please also cite your anecdote references with actual sources and not fansites. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama
Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ENIAC
Robert,

Thanks for your message. I am just getting used to editing and the etiquette for talking does seem very strange to me, do you reply on their page or your page or the article page etc, it seems whichever you do it is wrong; do you reply inline where it makes sense or out of line where it is easily searched, etc.

I am coming to the conclusion that this is just a big flaw in the wiki architecure (not even in wikipedia specifically just any wiki). Telling people the "rules" is great cos as you see I am not trying to be malicious just like oh where do I put this. Especially if one is deep in a heavy edit, one's mind may not be on where do I put this comment to a user that, to save any embarrassment from them, I *don't* want in the main talk channel. Of course ultimately everything can be seen but sometimes you want to say something like (did you mean that? I think you said the opposite of what you meant) and would just like to do it "in private".

Best wishes and thanks. SimonTrew (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply but then this is the bind that happens. Either I have to copy your reply to your talk page, or vice versa. I can hit cut and paste easy enough (indeed I have argued in conferences and the companies I work for that it should be banned-- not just in wikis but everywhere-- because it just encourages copying rather than linking), but you see the bind now you have to go to my talk page to get the reply then yours to get your reply to my reply and so on.


 * It's probably most frustrating because hey the technology is there. To me much of Wikipedia's value, against a paper encyclopaedia (good and true as they are) much comes from good linking where people can find out other related stuff, or indeed jump into something entirely new to them by way of a link.


 * Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW since you are more well-versed at this you may know-- I have trying desperately to find guidelines here but with no success. I augmented handmade (my main editing being to cheesemaking which I haven't finished yet) and it has a more fulsome definition than on wiktionary. But wiktionary does have a definition, very brief, and links to some other languages. I don't know what to do now, what link or template I should use to cross-refer the two. Can you help? SimonTrew (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks that is handy. But I don't want to stamp over the wiktionary entry just relate the two. Will that do that? SimonTrew (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done the wiktionary link. Actually I put it at the bottom, which seems to be the common style. I imagine this takes a while for a bot to pick up, so I am crossing my fingers. SimonTrew (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

J! Archive
Can I help with the J! Archive? My name is Ben and my e-mail is benhen1997@gmail.com.

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio
I thought you may be remotely interested. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor judgment
Wow. You put a logo that's the main identifying image for an article up for deletion and added a deletion tag to the article, when that was surely more work for you than just filling in the two or three lines of appropriate information on the image's fair use rationale template? Robert K S (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?
 * I have nominated a lot of images for deletion lately. Can you please specify which one you are concerned about, so that I can respond to your accusation? Stifle (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of SCFX
A tag has been placed on SCFX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TM 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: this.
 * Being the first of anything is not a valid criteria for notability as defined by Wikipedia's general criteria for notability. Further, notability is not inherited from one notable subject to another subject which lacks sufficient sources to verify its notability independently.  Without such independent verification, this article may face deletion at any time. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The assertion of notability, whether of Barack Obama or any other subject matter, is always supported by "significant coverage... independent of the subject"; it does not need to say, "this is important because...". However, if the subject lacks a statement that clues the reader in AND has insufficient and/or unsuitable sources, then the assertion of notability cannot be simply that someone took the time to make the article, and perhaps made it look good.


 * To be clear, Barack Obama is a suitable subject for inclusion because we have ample evidence independent of the subject which corroborates claims made by the article.''


 * As to being locked out of the article, I'm not sure what you mean. I have placed no restrictions on you or the article, and I placed that tag on their for your benefit, so that you would have some time to come up with some sources before it could be deleted again. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no clear assertion of notability; therefore the tag should have stayed. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not yet encountered an article wherein simply claiming to be the first of its kind serves as a reasonable claim of notability. Many are deleted with similar claims. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:1984-09-10Season1Set1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1984-09-10Season1Set1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:1987-04-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1987-04-21Jeopardy!Set1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2006-11-07Season23Set1.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SCFX
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SCFX, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable student organization

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TM 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday Machine
So... is there anything you want us to do with your comment on the article above? Why can't you do a little research yourself? Is it really notable that on occasion one actor/actress isn't in the script? Alastairward (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Star Trek either. The suggestion that there is significance to a second tier actress in a show not appearing in a particular episode is hardly compelling. Alastairward (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assumption of bad faith on your behalf is the only evil commited :) I've seen too many "Oh, I just thought this" comments on talk pages to think they're often little more than chat forums. Alastairward (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy Set Cruft
I understand that the contributions you have made to the Jeopardy! are quite numerable, but adding cruft such as a logo's flashing colors and fan nicknames of sets is not necessarily encyclopedic. As Wikipedia is not a fansite or a newsgroup, the article already contains far too much intricate detail for a communal encyclopedia. Abstract information about aesthetics of the set, which has almost no relation to the actual gameplay of the show, is all that is needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "common nickname" you are including is a nickname only used on fan sites and not among the general population. Based on your own Google search referenced on my talk page, the following are the top four results listed:
 * 1. A site that displays fan-created art
 * 2. The Jeopardy! Database of Champions, a fan site
 * 3. A Salute to Game Shows, a fan site
 * 4. Golden-Road.net, a game show fan site & message board


 * The three search results after the top four lead to either user-contributed video sites or the GSN website discussion board, a board contributed to by fans and not entertainment professionals.


 * "Identification of a certain set with a certain era of the show", as stated by you on my talk page, is not the main goal of an article describing the show. It is superfluous, unencylopedic information. The current description includes information related to the adaptation of technology, a claim you counter in your recent edit to my talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing Tags
Please stop removing tags placed in the Jeopardy! article as you have in the following edits:
 * Revision as of 23:33, 19 May 2009
 * Revision as of 21:04, 3 May 2009
 * Revision as of 20:59, 14 March 2009
 * Revision as of 03:12, 14 March 2009

The tags have been placed in this article because it contains a large amount of intricate detail specific to a certain audience.

These edits obviously are made in conjunction with your personal beliefs stated here and here, and have not been made in a good faith effort as a Wikipedia editor.

Also, it appears that you are making edits to Wikipedia so that it becomes an extension of your own personal fan site, The J! Archive, a website you state was founded by yourself on your user page here. These edits contradict the neutral point of view guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!
How is he canvassing? I'm an involved editor and he asked me to state my opinion. He didn't ask me to agree with him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You still participated in the discussion didn't you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, yes, much to his chagrin, I gamble. Robert K S (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's a good point actually. I wasn't aware of WP:TAGGING; there're far too many essays here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Your best bet with regards to Template:Fancruft is to nominate it at Miscellany for deletion, because you are correct. This template, based on an essay that pretty much all serious editors consider nonsense, has no legitimate place on articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Jeopardy! Random trivia
Do you have a source for the 66-episode show number disparity? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vilmorin
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Re: Vilmorin DYK
To answer your question, the hook itself still wasn't explicitly cited, and while more refs were added, a good deal of the article was still unreferenced. Plus we've suddenly gained a HUGE number of DYKs recently so guidlines had to be tightened a bit, which sucks but no way around it. Wizardman 12:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Please
This is your own minority opinion and not the standard procedure for using tags. If you disagree with the purpose and format of tags, discuss that on the template's talk space or request assistance from an administrator. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again this is your own opinion that it is controversial to include tags on articles. You have clearly stated that on the template's discussion page (which did not reach a consensus that this tag is controversial and that cleanup tags are acceptable) and again on your user page. You are the person who continually removes the tags, creating an edit war. This clearly is not "drive by tagging" as you have labeled it, as I have contributed to both the discussion on the article's talk page and in requesting verification and editing out fancruft from the article. Please stop removing the tags. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, you simply hinder the process by continually removing tags rather than engage the editors who question your addition of cruft. Please stop removing tags, deterring the removal of cruft and creating circular arguments. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The cruft arguments I've made are not remotely vague or non-specific. There are several bullet points with text quoted from the article where I've asked for references, clarification or the necessity for inclusion. You simply continue to make an argument that your own addition of unsourced information is acceptable or make circular arguments about what is/is not cruft. You still have not proven that there is a "general consensus" regarding template messages in articles belong on the talk page or don't belong at all. This simply is a matter of your own opinion and preference. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! (video games)
I created a merge proposal to combine Jeopardy! (video games) into Jeopardy! in merchandising. You can provide insight on the Jeopardy! in merchandising talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Network evening news
My modification doesn't affect the thesis except to specify that the switch applied only to the NYC market and not to the network as a whole. Many other affiliates of all three networks already carried their respective network newscasts at 6:30 before WABC made the switch. WABC's move, though, did influence a lot of affiliates around the country to do the same. Are you asking me to cite a source for the existence of two feeds at 6:30 and 7, from which each affiliate could choose? JTRH (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that was within arm's reach of my computer: TV Guide Philadelphia Edition, week of February 23, 1985. All three network evening newscasts aired at 6:30 on the Philadelphia stations and 7:00 on the New York City stations. JTRH (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

J! broadcast history
I'm posting this on both of your talk pages. May I respectfully ask that you and Sottolacqua both take a cooling-off period from this page? My recent work keeps getting wiped out in the reversion wars. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

File:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1992-05-19Jeopardy!Season8LeaderCard.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File:2007-01-11Season23Slate.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2007-01-11Season23Slate.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy! broadcast history and network evening news
I've just posted three comments (with sources) in response to your comments about the network evening news slots on the talk page of the Jeopardy! broadcast history page. I think that covers everything you wanted to know about the issue. JTRH (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)JTRH (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome.JTRH (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

John V. Atanasoff
Whatever about the appropriateness of protection on the above article, your use of rollback here is inappropriate. Please don't use rollback in cases of anything other than blatant vandalism - A l is o n  ❤ 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's blatant vandalism by an ethnic booster, as anyone who would care to examine the issue with any degree of thoughtfulness would rapidly conclude. Robert K S (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "blatant vandalism" - not by any stretch. It's also plainly against the guidelines described in WP:REVERT and WP:ROLL, and it's clear that you've no intent to change your repeated misuse of it. It's unfair to other editors and is a repudiation of their good faith edits. I'm removing your rollback rights for the moment due to your misapplication of them and your failure to acknowledge the problem. I've tried repeatedly to discuss this with you, but to no avail - A l is o n  ❤ 06:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be taking this up with admin central, wherever that is. Robert K S (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding, this comment, I've just posted a lengthy statement on the talk page, pointing out that a number of User:Monshuai's statements about you were incorrect and unfair. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that the majority of editors favour your position right now, and have stated so. If you wish to lodge a complaint regarding my actions, the best place would probably be Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - A l is o n  ❤ 06:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alison, to reiterate, I feel Monshuai's edits to this article cannot be classified as good faith. I came to this conclusion rapidly but my lengthy interaction with Monshuai over a period of years has only solidified this position.  I appreciate that you might disagree, or don't see this, but I'm confident that my position would prevail if it were looked into by other admins.  I feel that my use of rollback in this instance was within the bounds of the intended purpose of rollback.  I appreciate that you disagree.  However, your removal of my rollback simply for my disagreeing with you, even after my total disengagement from the article and its talk page, was not justified.  So, I'd like you to restore the tool on my account, as I do do my share of vandalism reversion of the more juvenile sort.  You have my word that I won't use it on the Atanasoff article.  (I don't know why you didn't feel this was implicit by my actions and other remarks.)  I've already started building an administrator request for comments page, but in light of your apology of sorts, I'd be just as keen to drop the matter since I have better things to do with my time than engage in squabbles. Robert K S (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rollback was not removed "simply for not disagreeing with you". There are multiple examples of its misuse and at this time, I'm not seeing any reason to apologize for removing it. In fact, I recommend you seek additional admin input into my decision. Like you, I'm not interested in squabbles, but I can't allow you to use rollback tools in the manner that you have here, on any article that you're in dispute over. It's just not fair to other editors - A l is o n  ❤ 07:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you or did you not remove my rollback in emotional response to my 22:22, 6 October 2009 post to my talk page? Robert K S (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I've stated my reasons above. I try to keep emotional responses out of admin duties - A l is o n  ❤ 07:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At approximately what time did you remove my rollback? Was it before or after 22:22, 6 October 2009?  At what time did you decide you were going to remove my rollback?  If it was after 22:22, 6 October 2009, why did you elect to wait until then? Robert K S (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

&larr; You can view your userrights log here. At this point, I recommend you either take the matter to WP:ANI or seek a second opinion from another admin - A l is o n  ❤ 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see 2009-10-07T02:06:57, which I presume is my local time, meaning you revoked the rollback a little over an hour ago, around the same time you posted this message, or in other words, shortly after you read my message. Just to get the record straight, you still contend that even given the temporal coincidence of your actions, your removal of my rollback was unlinked to my post to my talk page in which I disagreed with your assessment? Robert K S (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I'm wondering if this brouhaha stems from a misunderstanding of when it is appropriate to use rollback. I can see how you might have felt that the words "clearly unproductive [edits]" (from WP:ROLL) applied to the edits you did indeed roll back. I just now made an edit to that page to hopefully clarify what rollback's intended purpose is:. Given that change to the text -- and assuming it is consistent with how the community intends rollback to be used -- do you see now why there is a general perception that rollback was not the appropriate tool to use in this case?--Father Goose (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A Note of Appreciation
Robert, I want to thank you for being a stalwart participant in maintaining the John von Neumann article, for your general patience with me, and the camaraderie that has ensued. It has been a true pleasure to work with you. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Testing Recall About Strange Happenings
A tag has been placed on Testing Recall About Strange Happenings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask how it's not an A7? Your sources are blogs and a Yahoo! group, and there're absolutely no reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I showed the article to an administrator; he looked it over and agreed that an A7 was valid even with your hangon. I have no sort of "agenda" regarding your articles, and I have noticed in the past that you are viciously defensive of anything you edit. Can you tell me how you think that the subject is by any means notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. Your hangon wasn't valid. You just said it didn't meet A7. You didn't elaborate on that point, and you didn't even think to explain why it didn't meet A7. And even now, you're still dodging the issue and failing to explain why you think it doesn't meet A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I've explained to you why I removed it from my talk page. Please do not reinstate it. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfied User:Robert K S/Testing Recall About Strange Happenings
As you requested, I've put the text of the deleted article Testing Recall About Strange Happenings on your subpage here: User:Robert K S/Testing Recall About Strange Happenings. While I don't want to discourage you from working on improving the article to meet WP standards, I have to say I don't see much here to keep it from being speedy deleted again without major work. None of the external links are reliable source quality and the article relies completely on these external links at the moment. Please be aware that I don't like to let userfied articles stay up indefinitely. Some people have used this method as a way of circumventing the deletion process rather than to actively improve and repost the article. I have the page watchlisted and I'll be keeping an eye on it. Drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, Pigman ☿/talk 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've removed the speedy delete tag (of course) and added a userpage template to keep it from being confused with a regular WP article on any mirrors. Please leave that template on it until you are ready to repost the article. Thanks! Pigman ☿/talk 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfied User:Robert K S/Game Show Congress
I've moved the deleted Game Show Congress to your user subpage User:Robert K S/Game Show Congress.

I'm concerned at the following userfied subpages, some of which have been untouched for many months or even years in some cases. If you are not going to work on these articles, I will delete them in a week.


 * User:Robert K S/50ggsoat
 * User:Robert K S/Black McCains - deleted per request
 * User:Robert K S/Game Show Congress
 * User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! auditions
 * User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! in popular culture
 * User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! set evolution
 * User:Robert K S/SCFX
 * User:Robert K S/Testing Recall About Strange Happenings
 * User:Robert K S/Trebek effect - deleted per request
 * User:Robert K S/agiii
 * User:Robert K S/epstat
 * User:Robert K S/jap
 * User:Robert K S/jipc

Pigman ☿/talk 04:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your DRV nom
Thanks, though can you also remove the allegations of off-site coordination? They don't really belong at DRV, either. Tim Song (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done per your suggestion. Robert K S (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Robert K S/Game Show Congress
Now that you've got Game Show Congress userfied, and I believe it will be returned per an incorrect A7 deletion. HOWEVER, its time to source the heck out of the article per available reliable sources and books else it will not survive an AfD. Want any help? Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) Merge Proposals
I've proposed editing and merging One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase into the respective sections of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please feel free to comment here. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I've started a thread about you at WP:ANI. You plow through my edits all the time just because you don't like them; it seems like you've got some sort of vendetta against me, and it has to stop. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now you're putting words in my mouth. "TenPoundHammer's here because she was on Jeopardy! once, and TenPoundHammer has made it his mission to pare any Jeopardy!-related content from the encyclopedia. His edit record is becoming more and more littered with this nonsense." I have done far more than edit Jeopardy! articles; I did a similar thing with Invader Zim articles/redirects a while back. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I did discuss my removal on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeopardy!
That's the spirit, Robert. I dug the Jeopardy! book out of the basement last night with the intention of adding content to the article, and will agree to your pact of not deleting any Jeopardy! content for now. Don't ever be afraid to compromise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias
Hi there. The reason I argued to delete this template is not because there's a better alternative, but because it simply isn't needed - we don't need a disambiguation template for the circumstances it was designed for. As used on Positive airway pressure, it informed readers that 'CPAP' could stand for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, but it could stand for other things as well, as listed on the CPAP disambiguation page. However, a disambiguation link isn't needed here: if the reader searched for 'CPAP', then they would have found the disambiguation page first, so they don't need to be linked back to it. If they are interested in Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, then it isn't particularly useful to them to tell them what else 'CPAP' can stand for. I have removed the template from this article. Robofish (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think at one time it might have been useful because CPAP was a direct redirect to Positive airway pressure (which is sensible, since it is by far the most common use for the term); and what is now the CPAP disambig page used to reside at CPAP (disambiguation).  At least, that's my best explanation.  I hope I'm remembering correctly.  That setup also makes a lot more sense to me.  Someone typing CPAP into Wikipedia shouldn't have to go to a disambig page first--they should go directly to the article about CPAP. Robert K S (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My memory is not faulty, and the switchover happened relatively recently, in August.  I disagree with the editor that one version of the term is not more dominant than the others.  The medical device context is certainly prevalent over the other meanings.  Google CPAP and you will have to go through three pages of results before you find even one link to a different meaning of "CPAP" (the Virginia public policy center).  Then you will have to go through many more pages of results until you find a different meaning.  (I gave up before finding a different one.) Robert K S (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've taken another look at this, and I agree with you: CPAP should go straight to the article on Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, as that seems to be by far the most widely used meaning of that acronym. In that case, a template would be appropriate: the one to use would be Redirect, which would look like this:


 * I would thus support moving the article currently at CPAP back to CPAP (disambiguation) and turning CPAP back into a redirect, but as the disambiguation page already exists, that can't be done without the assistance of an administrator. I suggest you create an entry on WP:Requested moves, and explain there why it should be done. Good luck. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a redirect for 'CPAP machine' that does go to the Positive airway pressure article. So Redirect could be used to disambiguate that. For example, putting " " in the article would produce the following notice:
 * Of course, if 'CPAP' is redirected instead of being kept as the dab article, then the advice in the discussion above would be sound. --RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the first redirect advice is silly. If somebody types in "CPAP machine", they're not looking for the Virginia public policy center and the hatnote is superfluous. Robert K S (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree; I was just giving you your options. A hatnote is only needed if readers may have arrived at a different article than what they want. Currently, if someone searches for 'CPAP', they go to CPAP. If someone has arrived at Positive airway pressure, they probably don't care about the other uses of 'CPAP'. If CPAP is redirected to this article, then a standard Redirect hatnote would be appropriate. Until then, there doesn't seem to be a need for any hatnote at all. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree; I was just giving you your options. A hatnote is only needed if readers may have arrived at a different article than what they want. Currently, if someone searches for 'CPAP', they go to CPAP. If someone has arrived at Positive airway pressure, they probably don't care about the other uses of 'CPAP'. If CPAP is redirected to this article, then a standard Redirect hatnote would be appropriate. Until then, there doesn't seem to be a need for any hatnote at all. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging
Hi Robert,

Like you, I'm also concerned by the drive-by tagging which is occurring more and more frequently on WP. Anyone can just add a clean-up tag on an article; the tag doesn't improve the content in any way, and more and more often I'm noticing many of the tags are inappropriate from the very beginning, or are left on for too long. Next time you come across a policy discussion on tagging, please ping my talk page so that I can participate. I missed the one you participated in. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert,
 * Thanks for adding my comments, and please keep me informed if you spot a new discussion. Take care, Firsfron of Ronchester  01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"a typical failure of the process"
I saw the quote of yours about an ANI (somewhere) ... and surely can provide one example lol (a virgin trip to ANI is oft fraught with peril ... the second time much more satisfactory, if time-wasting). Reason I'm leaving this note is that I also see you've been around awhile, and clearly have had much more time to observe said "process" than I. Note that I have also had conversations with Arbcom candidates in which they characterized many things that happen there as "carwrecks." (Some noise about fixing it, but that's complex matter, isn't it? lol) Anyway ... as you see I noted the phrase above, and was wondering if you had any more fragments of insight (including how problems might be transcended ... complexity of it all, notwithstanding). And surely feel free to disregard this note (or even zap it :-) ... and in any case happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Answered on my talk, also) But imagine a list of those who should have no dominion there. A few names appear... More to come. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See this call?. Note: WP:PLAXICO (ah, the pattern, perhaps, has a name, mis-framed though) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)