User talk:Roberthall7

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Art in Action Hi I have seen your reversions of Sannacott's edits and your note to him. Please justify this and explain what in particular you are objecting to. As far as I can see, Sannacott was bringing this page up to date. wikirpg (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You know perfectly well that the paragraph in question, and its verifiable reference, was unilaterally ripped out by Sannacott more than once without discussion. That does not characterise bringing something "up to date" as you describe it. That characterizes vandalism, which Wikiepdia takes extremely seriously. As such, your depiction of Sannacott's edits are conspicuous and will be included in any vandalism alert if I make one. That said, Sannacott has since made a compromise edit more in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos of collegiality, so we have stepped back from the brink for the time being. -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. You have still lost me. Is it the bit about ownership of Waterperry or the bit about volunteers and charging entrance? These are the only bits I can see that you could be objecting to. As I see it, the charging bit placed where it was looked like opinion/inuendo rather than facts in the true spirit of Wikipedia. The ownership bit I am sure could be verified but appears rather unbalanced in the opening paragraph. Bringing it "up to date" is a reference to Sannacott's changes of year/event which had been removed in the reversions. Hopefully everyone is happy with what appears now. wikirpg (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

School of Economic Science
Hi Roberthall7, I've made a comment on the talk page. Skyring/Pete should not be deleting sourced content. Feel free to ping me on my talk page and remind me to join the discussion if I forget. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roberthall7, thanks for your feedback on my edits. Could you message me with your with any objections before reverting anything. I'm more than happy to address any objections. Thanks. Concentrado343 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.. The matter concerns the School of Economic Science Travelmite (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Two recommendations
Having looked at your contributions over several years, it does seem that you would benefit from having a try at editing other articles. You'd gain a broader range of experience of writing about talking about issues. Also, I recommend, where possible, making your points more concise. Busier editors will skip over long texts. Travelmite (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the School of Economic Science page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=731899367 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F731899367%7CSchool of Economic Science%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reverts on this page
Please note that comments on this page were recently reverted. Check your edit history! Travelmite (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal and refactoring of user talk page messages
Greetings, Roberthall7. Apologies for the delay, I’ve been busy with other things recently and I’ve also not been well. In response to your message at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, here is a general outline of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines on removal and refactoring of user talk page messages:

In general, the only people who should remove user talk page messages are the person who made them (self-reverting) and the person whose talk page the message was written on. Per WP:BLANKING, although archiving is preferred, and with some exceptions such as declined unblock requests regarding active blocks, editors may remove messages (in whole) from their own talk pages. This is usually an indication the message has been read, and the removed message will still remain in the talk page's history. Per WP:TPO, editors are not allowed to edit others' messages to e.g. correct spelling mistakes or change the meaning of the messages, without the user's permission. However, they, and other edits, are allowed to remove part of a message if it that particular part constitutes a clear personal attack or clearly unacceptable conduct. They may replace it with a template such as or. Examples of messages that can be removed in whole by uninvolved editors, as a courtesy, include clear vandalism, trolling and personal attacks. If said messages have already been replied to, they can be e.g. struck (syntax: text ).

WP:TPO and WP:TPNO only list some examples of appropriate message refactoring and inappropriate talk page behaviour respectively. They don't mention canvassing (which is what happened in this situation, when left you the message, User Pete/Skring has come off his block & has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That's my thanks for trying to be even-handed!, letting you know about the discussion at ANI), but canvassing is regarded as disruptive. WP:USERTALKBLOG says, The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done… If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, the edit appears unlikely to cause problems, and you are quite sure the material is inappropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. The message Travelmite left you seemed problematic, as it appeared that since you have collaborated in the past s/he left it out of bias in hopes you would take his/her side. I removed it in good faith, but neglected to explain why to you. Sorry about that.

To answer your other question, I haven’t interacted with Travelmite or in the past, and while I fear I may have been too quick to jump in and suggest that the former was WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked, but looking at the situation again, it seems both parties have been uncivil. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please ping me (type    before your message). 12:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)