User talk:Rolf h nelson/Archive 1

Talkback
Feel free to join the discussion; it looks like USChick failed to notify you that they nominated this file for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Kluge (book) was accepted
 Kluge (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Gigs (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your Revert on cold fusion
FYI: Talk:Cold_fusion --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Improvement to article on mulivitamins
Thank you for your improvement to my recent edit of the article on Multivitamins. I am happier with your wording than mine. As you had noted, I cited this National Health Service source for advice on taking vitamin supplements during pregnancy. I think you agreed that it was an adequate source for a warning against supplementing vitamin A intake during pregnancy. But I think you did not see it as advice against the general multivitamin supplements that are the topic of the article. On the contrary, i felt that it did also warn against general multivitamin supplements. It is my understanding that multivitamins usually (perhaps almost always) contain vitamin A (though probably in limited doses). The NHS article included this sentence:
 * Do not take vitamin A supplements, or any supplements containing vitamin A (retinol), as too much could harm your baby.

This is a clear warning against any supplement containing vitamin A. I thought that would include most formulations of a general multivitamin. If that last sentence is generally correct, then the NHS article does warn against the general multivitamin. I am not an expert and defer this to your judgement. I am aware that Wikipedia's intellectual aim is only to report the content of reliable sources, but there could be a moral or ethical obligation here too, if a general multivitamin is dangerous to a pregnant woman and her baby. I am not in a position to evaluate that. Thanks again from ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Talk page stalker here. Just as an FYI, per WP:Medical disclaimer the WMF makes very clear that any medical information on this site is provided without warranty. We obviously want our information to be thorough and accurate, but ultimately this site will never be a replacement for professional medical advice. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Followup here: Talk:Multivitamin Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Existential risks
Your writing, about a month ago:
 * Wolfdog, should the article on human extinction be renamed to "existential risk"? I would argue no, because "human extinction" is less jargon-y. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you here, but I wonder why "existential risk" doesn't at least redirect to "human extinction." Instead, why does it redirect to the article Risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth which also uses the bolded phrase "existential risk" in the lead? I assume the answer is because no one can agree on what exactly an existential risk is, or whose "existence" is the one at risk (civilization's, all of humanity's, all of the planet's??); therefore, an existential risk might be broader (or narrower) than just human extinction. Wolfdog (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Existential risk is definitely more narrow than "risks to civilization". Bostrom defines it as a little bit broader than human extinction, but it practice all the literature and press coverage seems to focus on human extinction. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you say that Bostrom is basically our main source here and, if so, should we start seriously considering "Global catastrophic risks," which we can then define largely in his terms? Wolfdog (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably. Everything's relative, I can't judge whether Bostrom et al's Global Catastrophic Risks carries more or less WP:WEIGHT than another source unless you give me a specific source to compare it to. I can only say that *of the sources I'm aware of*, Bostrom et al seems to carry the most WP:WEIGHT in the extremely niche academic field of "categorizing enormous risks", and so I'm proposing using that same *terminology* for the title of the article. Definition is trickier than choosing terminology, but while we are unfortunately limited to one title, we can happily present any number of definitions in the article. Bostrom et al begins:


 * "'The term ‘global catastrophic risk’ lacks a sharp definition. We use it to refer, loosely, to a risk that might have the potential to inflict serious damage to human well-being on a global scale. On this definition, an immensely diverse collection of events could constitute global catastrophes: potential candidates range from volcanic eruptions to pandemic infections, nuclear accidents to worldwide tyrannies, out-of-control scientific experiments to climatic changes, and cosmic hazards to economic collapse.'"


 * If other sources are obviously talking about the same rough concept (for example, "risks to civilization"), but use different definitions, that should be noted in the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the "Risks to civilization..." page, it appears that the mandatory time frame has ended for the move survey, so that we are now permitted to follow through with "closing" the move request; however Requested moves/Closing instructions says that people participating in the move survey can't close requested moves. That seems like a bit of a catch-22. Wolfdog (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Revert on Cryonics
Hello. Could you explain why you (and previous user Bgwhite) have reversed my edits to the Cryonics entry? I've never edited a wikipedia entry so may not fully understand etiquette/rules. But I am trying to ensure that the important role played by Lawrence Jensen in the early formulation and publicity of cryonics is included in its history (as Alcor does in its own accounting).132.198.112.180 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit mangled the Whetstine Guardian reference by replacing a large chunk of valid text inside the reference with "AKDHASHDKGAKDKAKD". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit guidelines
Hey hello, I was reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

You've accused me of ignoring consensus. I assure you I have not. The thing is, consensus doesn't overrule the edit guidelines. We have notability guidelines and we have a manual of style that describes how and when to make article spin outs. I have followed these guidelines to the letter. Consensus doesn't come into it, either a topic is notable or it isn't.

Hope this helps, good luck editing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * is a clear and valid consensus for no split. As there is no rule mandating a split in this situation, and as the arguments not to split were valid, I would classify this as you ignoring consensus and being disruptive. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Jab843 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Are you the sci fi author Rolf Nelson? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, no relation. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN
I replied to your message at the WP:DRN talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiverse
Hi I wanted to thank you for all your help at Multiverse and clarify that I don't mean to imply you were trying to "censor" anyone... I just think the best argument should always be put forward and in this case, the conclusion really is necessary to "bring it home" for the lay reader (and me). Also, the puns (like the "What is going on here?" line) help show how playfully both "sides" tend to approach the controversy.—Machine Elf 1735  15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is a troll who has switched sides when it suited it. It is best not to feed it. I resolved the address to a university town in Texas, not sure how you got NJ; and anyway PW is in NY. Bhny (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad, I agree there's no evidence the IP is woit. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Distance measure
Hi, I just noticed that you wanted a citation for the "3 km northeast of the police academy" statement i included on the Syria chemical weapons program page. I don't have any RS saying that, but it can easily be measured here: (http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.158684&lon=37.015257&z=15&m=b&gz=0;370110511;361546995;0;0;285386;134086&show=/19456848/Khan-al-Asal-district). The impact point (https://www.google.com/maps/preview?ll=36.167222,37.039167&q=loc:36.167222,37.039167&hl=en&t=h&z=13) is marked in the final UN report (Figure 3.2, page 29). Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My first thought then is that if other sources don't bother ascribing any relevence to how far away it was from a given landmark, we shouldn't either per WP:UNDUE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe or maybe they just didn't know at the time the article was written. FYI, the location of the liberated police academy can be verified from this video. Warning: Disturbing images. Cheers, Erlbaeko (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kind of WP:ORish, and it seems a bit excessive level of detail for this page. But, I don't object strongly anymore; if you re-add it with a comment explaining how you calculated the number we'll see if the other editors let it stay in. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that it may be too detailed for the page. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Typical convention for RfC
I checked WP:RFC. I see nothing of what you talk about. Sure a common way is to have a survey section and a discussion section, and in that case you vote in he survey section, but... when there are no such sections...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) ...oh, and sorry for removing the added "vote" that you put in on your own comment. That was an accidental oversight. As it was your comment, I should not have removed that ...just like how you had no right to add the "votes" to the comments of others.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, there's no rule, it's just the convention I've always seen is to format the RfC comments in a way that makes it easier to determine who the participants are and what their initial argument is. It seemed to me logical that in the absence of distinct and marked sections, it's more helpful to have it serve as both a survey and a discussion section. I'm fine with you changing it back; I didn't conceive at the time that anyone would object to the reformatting, but clearly I was wrong. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gout
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic Inflation
I am quoting from the textbook of Barbara Ryden "Introduction To Cosmology", page 206:

"Not only is inflation very effective at driving down the number density of magnetic monopoles, it is also effective at driving down the number density of every other type of particle, including photons."

According to the textbook, at the end of inflation, photon number density becomes negligible. It is only after reheating, the photon number density grows backup. Do you have any source for your counter remark that photon aren't negligible at the end of inflation? Thanks for your information.--老陳 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UK Independence Party
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cem Özdemir
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cem Özdemir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edit
I added a retorted to you last posting on Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II but because I have looked at your edit history in more detail, I have removed it. I have made more edits in the last month than you made since you started editing.

In my experience established editor do not go around revering other established editors with the comment "reverting good faith edit...". In over 90,000 edits in over a decade of editing, the usual proportion of which have been reverted, I doubt if that phrase has been used half a dozen times. So because of my experience I stand by my comments about it on the talk page Bombing of Dresden. -- PBS (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rolf: Sorry for dropping in here. My suggestion is that it is best to just ignore PBS. Juan Riley (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of 2014 American rescue mission in Syria
I'm suggesting "2014 American rescue mission in Syria → 2014 American operations in Syria The request is on the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hamas
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hamas. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:F1 driver results legend 2. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Funky Taurus
Funky Taurus wrote songs about theoretical physics. They are real and in the radio in Germany.It is not promotion or fake to mention the songs espacially because they have a real value other than just fun. A magAzin having checked GEMA ffn  SebastianRenz or stations playing the songs are as regular as stating Pink Flloyd and their work  — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @SebastianRenz We can absolutely discuss it, but first can you agree to stop edit-warring, that is, to stop re-adding your change after other editors revert it? The proper response to another editor reverting your work is to look up and understand the guidelines that the editor cited when reverting it, and then if you believe the other editor was in error and that your edit isn't violating the guidelines, to open up a discussion on the talk page for the article you're trying to modify stating why you believe the edit is valid. Are there any questions about that procedure? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That guy should be banned, together with user Ilkahenson. Both accounts spam English and German Wikipedia with advertising for Funky Taurus. I deleted most of it. --NiTen (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence
Harrias talk 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Obeah
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Obeah. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Because of Love
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Because of Love. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LGBT in Islam
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:LGBT in Islam. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctoral Students
You removed PhD students from Marvin Minsky's page who did not have wikipedia pages or support for notability, commending "un-wikilinked doctoral students; if a student is notable by Wikipedia standards, add him back with a wikilink or with a source attesting to his notability". The practice seems to be that many academics have all of their graduated PhD students listed. See, for example, Ron Rivest, Terry Winograd, David Karger, John McCarthy (computer scientist) and Alfred Aho. Tim Finin (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim Finin, but non-notable PhD students aren't supposed to be listed, see or the description of the field in . It's true that the less traffic a bio receives, the less likely it is to conform to policy, but if the inconsistency bugs you, feel free to delete or comment out non-notable students in other pages. If you think the policy should change, and have an argument why this info would be useful, definitely raise the issue at . Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Black hole
Hi. Quote:"first ever direct detection of black holes" would need a stronger cite to be included as fact

What stronger cite do you need? Multiple physicist and Prof. Stephen Hawking are affirming the same thing


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35551144
 * https://www.facebook.com/stephenhawking/posts/965377523549345 Stephen Hawking

The actual signal shows the black holes before during and after the merger: Quantanew (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Computer visualisation of the signal detected by LIGO
 * Danzmann says "first ever direct detection of black holes" but Hawking just says "first observation of gravitational waves, and of two black holes colliding and merging." "Direct" is a subjective term, but it seems to me most sources either (1) don't claim gravity waves from their interaction as "direct" detection of the black holes themselves, or (2) less commonly, claim that we've already had "direct" detection of a black hole in the past. But feel free to open a section on Talk:Black hole. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Black hole
I haven't been following Zedshort's edits but if it is full of unnecessary grammatical changes why not just revert back to 09:46, 18 February 2016. Fixed in one click. Slight Smile  01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The gerund form of verbs makes the writing very clunky. Reverting without thinking is mindless. Zedshort (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a conflicting edit that would have to be reapplied, but yeah, if someone else wants to resume it that would be the way to go. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Analyi. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I have also added this comment to prove to you that I am a human editor. Thank you. Analyi | (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks like a spurious warning. LjL (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit was referring to me as a "robot" in an offensive manner. Analyi | (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you're a disruptive human, and not a disruptive robot; I apologize for any offence given to robots. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think both of you should calm down. The WP:AIV report was unwarranted; Analyi seems to be quite tag-happy, but among their user warnings, I've spotted a few that let me find out about actual vandals. A number of their edits seemed legitimate, and so it's hard to call them a purely disruptive account. If you have sockpuppetry suspictions, you should gather evidence and take them to the appropriate venues. LjL (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks LjL, Analyi did indeed end up being banned as a sock of Legiallity. I don't know whether the vandals Analyi tagged were socks of Analyi or actual vandals, but either way, I agree I erred in using AIV rather than a different board. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be a strategy to obtain autoconfirmed status or a general aura of legitimacy, tagging vandals (or creating them and then tagging them). Something definitely didn't add up, but it's best to tread lightly when the other party is in turn being subtle. LjL (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marco Rubio
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

request for comment for BLP article
Hi there. Could you please weigh in at this RfC regarding Georgiy Starostin and whether his hobby as a music blogger should be included in the article and attributed to citations from his personal website/blog? Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Kim Jong-un image
I've boldly deleted File:North korea 2016 purported warhead.jpg per this discussion. Please see all of the many discussions at Talk:Kim Jong-un and then, if you still feel that image is acceptable, please start a discussion at that talk page with the link to that image's source. If the community agrees, then upload it. Thank you kindly for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Population Bottleneck - apparent Typo
I think there is a typo in your recent edit to Population Bottlenecks. I have not edited before and was reluctant to make a change without first investigating. If I am reading the revision history correctly, I think you made the edit.

On the last line or the first paragraph under "Humans", it says: "That said, the possibility of a severe recent species-wide bottleneck can be ruled out." Shouldn't that be "cannot be ruled out".?? Thanks. GregGaul (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No typo; the source says "Considerable genetic data are inconsistent with a recent bottleneck in the human lineage". If you've read the sources and think the current text is unclear or incorrect, feel free to propose changes on the edit page, or better yet be WP:BOLD and make any edits that might improve it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vincent C. Müller
Hi, I'm JamesG5. Rolf h nelson, thanks for creating Vincent C. Müller!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. External links & references are transposed and need to be switched. Needs more sources to establish notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. JamesG5 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of South America
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 April
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) 00:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Postmodern philosophy page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=715987663 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%2F715987663%7CPostmodern philosophy%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monowheel tractor. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exemplar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of academic citations as truth criteria?
Hi- I saw that you deleted much new text in Technological singularity. I had seen the new addition yesterday and actually thought it was great (especially the Figure, which is always a nice contribution to bring Wikipedia to life). While you recognize that the article that was cited as source was published in one of the world's leading academic journals, you argue that the contribution should be deleted since it has not yet been cited. I just checked and the article was just published 2 months ago... Academic citations naturally take time (often years) and I don't agree that Wikipedia as a quick modern source has to wait for them... I would like your changes to be reversed, since I think that this content improved the article on Singularity (without it, the argument is very AI-focused, while technological singularity would not be possible without the growth of pure digital data...). This being said, I agree with your comment on the "information potentially available for recombination"- this wording can be improved.InfoCmplx (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding [[User:InfoCmplx|InfoCmplx (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by InfoCmplx (talk • contribs) 05:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AI control problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chatbot and Stuart Russell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pendant Productions
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pendant Productions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

About non-notable sources
Hi. You removed a Forbes ref from the WR 104 article some time ago, with the argument that Forbes blogs was "generally" non-notable sources. What do you mean by "generally"? I also wanted to know how you know that they are non-notable? Is there a list of non-notable sources somewhere perhaps? Just curious, as it would be great to consult such a list when you work with refs and sources on other pages. RhinoMind (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. Personally I agree there should be a list of known "usually admissible" and "usually inadmissable" sources, you should suggest it at the RS noticeboard if it hasn't been discussed already. See the paragraph at WP:BLOGS for what "generally" means; my interpretation is a top subject-matter expert's blog can be used, where the content is uncontroversial among the experts and where no better published source exists. I believe that WP:BLOGS rather than WP:NEWSBLOG (which I've never seen used) applies to Forbes blogs, but I'll ask for clarification on what WP:NEWSBLOG policy is here: Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Ortega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ángel González. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Productivity paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Roach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ride the Lightning. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 November
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) 00:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the OpenAI page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=748440351 your edit] caused a broken reference name (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%2F748440351%7COpenAI%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply on nuclear holocaust talk
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ping again. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stooges (album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stooges (album). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Photon Leakage
Rolf, you have blanked the photon leakage section at least 4 times now, and do not seem to be making much progress on the talk page of RF resonant cavity thruster. I would suggest that you think about it a bit at this point and decide whether its time to either drop the issue, or move on to dispute resolution. I think that continued discussion on this issue on the talk page seems to be going into a wiki black hole, and it seems obvious to me that if you think the issue is that serious that you should start a mediated DR on the issue, rather than continue to bang your head against a brick wall on the talk page. Another option is that you could take IBtimes to the RS noticeboard, to discuss whether it should or should not be considered a RS for this article, and following that discussion we can move from there. Regardless of what you choose, link me to the discussion please. InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that not much progress in being made in either side convincing the other on whether to include. Do you understand the rules of WP:CONSENSUS? The status quo ante in this case is non-inclusion; it is the generally responsibility of the editors who want to modify the page to escalate (for example, by bringing the RS board into the discussion). Do you understand why the policy is what it is, and what WP:FRINGE articles across Wikipedia would look like if we didn't have this policy? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone else was joining you in reverting it, I might agree, but the consensus is firmly against you. One person does not get to disrupt an article and force content out by crying "But consensus! *I* don't like it!". At this point you are entering the realm of tendentious editing, so perhaps you should take another look at Consensus. Again, why are you continuing to edit war? Just take it to DR or RS, as I've suggested. There we can have a calm discussion on the matter and decide it once and for all.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have voiced opposition to the addition of the poorly-sourced fringe paper arguing that photons can pass through arbitrarily large potential barriers via destructive interference. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your belligerent behaviour
You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you..

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding, yet you ignore it and are pushing your own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is seriously disruptive editing. As Sparkyscience correctly told you: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)" Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse. InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)" Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you and I agree that at least one of us is being disruptive, I went ahead raised an issue at ANI. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing others' comments
I'm sure that this edit was a mistake, but please be more careful. It's a good habit to both preview your own edits before saving changes and to check your diffs afterwards. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, my touchpad must've jumped. I will be more careful; thanks for fixing it! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sesshō and Kampaku
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sesshō and Kampaku. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hasan Salama
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hasan Salama. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:One America News Network
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:One America News Network. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Universal Paperclips
— Maile (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited AlphaZero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grandmaster ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/AlphaZero check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/AlphaZero?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)