User talk:Rp2006

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Rp2006! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:19, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Did You Know?
The article got just over 12,000 views due to DYK appearance (See here), but my analysis indicates it would have been ~38,000 if not fot DYK hook modification by DYK admins. RobP (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tweet
This article was sent in a tweet by Wikipedia's Twitter account on 11/8/16, resulting in over 13,000 pageviews (slightly more than its DYK posting results).

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination
The article Alan Hale (astronomer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alan Hale (astronomer) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Original notice
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alan Hale (astronomer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Did You Know?
IronGargoyle (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This article's DYK appearance garnered 9,493 pageviews, enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Summary: The article was promoted to a GA on 2/9/18, but shortly thereafter rolled-back to a B when the original reviewer was chastised for routinely doing shallow reviews. After making a set of small changes requested by a second reviewer, Mike_Christie, the GA status was again granted to the article on 2/17/18.

Original notice
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert J. Cenker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RadioFan -- RadioFan (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Sorry I did not have time to rescue the GA review. I have a lot going on IRL right now and was not able to put the effort in I would have liked to. In the meantime, you may want to have the Guild of Copy Editors look at it, or otherwise copy edit it yourself. That was the main thing that stuck out to me while I was reviewing it. If I get time I will copy edit it, but I will probably let someone else review it at that point. Thanks for the work on the article!  Kees08  (Talk)   19:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OK.... How does one get a review by this Guild? RobP (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow the instructions on WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and it will be about a month. They will probably be done with it before your article is reviewed.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Good article approval (Original)
The article Robert J. Cenker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Robert J. Cenker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RadioFan -- RadioFan (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rereview of Robert J. Cenker
Hi -- I wanted to let you know that the GA review of Robert J. Cenker has been reopened; see here. I've completed a new review of the article and have left some notes on the the GA review page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Good article approval (Update)
Robert J. Cenker has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 17, 2018.

Article creation
A page you started (Science Moms) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Science Moms, Rp2006!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"The lengthy block quotes can probably be succinctly summarized. This is an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I made the suggested changes a while ago. RobP (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Did You Know?
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC) DYK History:
 * On 11/25/17 this article was approved for Did you know...? placement and was moved to the approved page. RobP (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After a second DYK review (requested after WP:Notability issues were raised), on 12/10/17 it is was re-approved and moved to the DYK Queue page. RobP (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Beginning at 7pm EST on 12/14/17, the article was featured in DYK for 24 hours. RobP (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See here for full DYK nomination discussion.


 * This article's DYK appearance garnered 6,462 pageviews, enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I translated your article into german. I would like to use the Science-Moms-Logo in the german Wikipedia, too. Can you help me get a permission? I don't know how to do it. Thank you! --KAMfakten (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
The article Kenny Biddle has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Article is a vanity advertisement for subject. References are brief mentions or articles written by subject."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dogsix (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kenny Biddle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenny Biddle 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/Kenny Biddle 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. red dogsix (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:COIN
There is a discussion at the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard about your article. Elektricity (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Article creation
I published the Bob Nygaard article on 2-25-18.

DYK nomination and discussion
Hello! Your submission of Bob Nygaard at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I attempted to address your concerns. RobP (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK results
This article's DYK appearance garnered 11,127 pageviews, enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Did You Know?
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

File:The Photo Ark (book cover).png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination discussion
Hello! Your submission of The Photo Ark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This article's DYK appearance garnered it 3,377 pageviews.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup of foot).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup of foot).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup).jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. James (talk/contribs) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Other photos

 * File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup of foot).jpg
 * File:Seward Johnson's Forever Marilyn sculpture on display at the Grounds for Sculpture in 2014 (closeup).jpg

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Explaining patrolling
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Belgian UFO wave into Black triangle (UFO). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I mostly added new information but I do believe some was copied from Belgium page into the Belgium section of the Triangle page. Thanks for the info... I was unaware of these rules! RobP (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

FDA vs FTC in Homeopathy
Hey, I like your recent additions to Homeopathy but it seems like you've interchanged "FDA" and "FTC" in the text a little. For instance the citation you added named "FDA2016" is actually an FTC document and although it mentions the FDA in passing, doesn't commit the FDA to doing anything. Likewise the next sentence talks about "an FDA press release" but the citation is to a press release on the FTC website. I was going to fix it for you but I figured you might still be editing and I just thought I'd call it out. --Krelnik (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Should be all FTC - and should be correct now. If I missed anything else, feel free to fix it.RobP (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I added 2016 FDA ruling (previously added to article) to the lede as a summary. Also added associated FTC info to article.

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello I followed this link and can find nothing! Can you elaborate? RobP (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It was closed and archived. You can find it in the archives at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive287#Request_to_overturn_administrator.27s_decision ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA review of Osteopathy
Rp2006, if you wish to do a valid review of this article, please follow the instructions at WP:GANI. Reviews should go by this process, and occur on their own page, not be inserted directly on the article's talk page. I'm going to revert your edit there; you are welcome to open the review properly and include your comments on that page, and then close it per the instructions. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at the article history, and I see that you've made 16 edits to the article. According to the GA instructions, reviewers should Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review. Since that is the case, you may not be eligible to review it. What I would suggest instead is to post your issues on the talk page, and how the article falls short of the GA criteria, though not as a formal GA review. When the article does get a reviewer, you can then post a pointer to your talk-page post on the review page, and any further explanation you feel appropriate. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Rp2006. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARp2006 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Change to RPM reverted.
Your change to RPM has been reverted. Per WP:MALPLACED, please do not point "Foo" titles to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles. Also, please do not ever change the nature of a redirect with a large number of incoming links without first obtaining consensus. Please note that all incoming links must be fixed before such a change is made. bd2412 T 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Paranormal" and UFOs
Please do not add "paranormal" banner to pages such as Majestic 12 and other articles, when the explanation for these events are either a hoax, or has been explained in ways that have nothing to do with any paranormal activities. If you disagree, please take your reasons to the article(s) Talk page. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Copying my response from Talk:Roswell UFO incident:


 * To me, your take that this and other UFO-related articles should not connected with the word "paranormal" is extremely odd. What do you make of the fact that the paranormal side banner (which you deleted) actually includes UFOs in its list, and that most all UFO topics have the WikiProject Paranormal banner on their talk pages? Also note that in the category listed below for this article, "paranormal" is included numerous times. As I understand it, your objection to this is because UFO's are not "real"? Well (likely) neither is Bigfoot or ghosts or energy healing, so are you going to claim those - or anything else that is wrong or a hoax - is not a valid paranormal topic either? If that were true, then nothing at all would be classified that way, and the word would lose all meaning! RobP (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Answered on the Roswell Talk page, as previously requested by myself. David J Johnson (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Henry rebuttal section argument
Hey, with all due respect, why in the world did you remove the rebuttal section in this article, here?

Thank you for weighing in on the [talk page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyler_Henry&diff=next&oldid=782698059] about your edit. However, your removal of this section has made the article one-sided and biased.

I agree my edit was "too short," but what do you propose as the solution. Please don't complain unless you have a better idea. I mean, all that psychic stuff is spooky (and I honestly don't know whether it's true or not), but you have this huge section "against" the subject, and the small section "for" him was deleted, making a biased article even more biased. This is not encyclopedic.

But, if you mean that my edit (adding the rebuttal section in right here) was too brief and curt, I would agree with you. Help me fix that, so the article is balanced and explains both (or all) sides of the issue. Thank you.96.59.177.219 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I also added a criticism on religious grounds (saying he is fake if he gets his information from demons), which helps balance the article, since I added back in the thing you deleted, but expanding it to make it Encyclopedic. Read both my edits before you make a decision, ok? Thanks.96.59.177.219 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that your edit was too short. A Wiki article is not the place to have an ongoing argument. Reliably cited facts are stated in a Wiki article and then, when appropriate, challenged... either in a criticism section as here, or after each point. There is no Rebuttal section needed. Should there then be a Rebuttal to the rebuttals section? And so on? If there are more (reliably sourced) facts on the positive side, add them to the sections above Criticisms. Also, please open an official Wiki account. RobP (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

B&B AfD
I hope you see how you screwed yourself at Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida). I think you overestimated the degree to which editors would respond to your call that BnBs were involved in writing articles about these houses in order to help business. You kept adding new entries after the AfD started under that same rationale and the aggregate refused, preferring to keep NRHP sites. I made the case in my comment that GEOFEAT requires more than listing but you didn't make that case and you confused the issue. Sometimes you're going to do a good job of providing rationale and the aggregate will just vote per WP:ILIKEIT, which they do pretty often. Sometimes, however, you present a less-than-stellar case and you get your ass handed to you. I wanted to see deletions but that didn't happen and your AfD stats remain a pathetic 0% with consensus. Anyway, please learn this lesson and perhaps next time you'll be more successful. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * First off. What's with the hostile attitude? Second, I screwed myself? How did I do anything to myself? I don't actually have a horse in this race. I observed something that seemed untoward, and put it out there for the community of those who might care (and know better) to confirm or deny. If they decide to KEEP, so be it. And as for the "you kept adding new entries..." Well I actually did it all in one sitting within a very short time. (Maybe a half hour?) I put the first B&B up for AfD and only then discovered the bulk option. So I went right to work adding the others that looked to me to be related. How was I to know some folks would be so hot to vote almost instantly before I was done, and then others would use that as an excuse to say KEEP? In any case, it seems that what I did wrong was to lump houses together incorrectly, not realizing the differences in the type of house. As I understand it, you are free to fine tune this and try again. So if you are more knowledgeable about this subject than am I, just renominate the B&Bs that you feel are of the same type type and deserving of deletion. A sincere good luck! RobP (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No hostility on my end; I apologize if it sounded that way. Again, I agree with what you were trying to do. What you saw was untoward. I thought you went about it the wrong way and the inclusionists got you. I'm not going to renominate any of those this year as the aggregate's going to reject it. Maybe 2018, if I even get around to it. Anytime any page goes live you should expect others to see it within minutes. You own your AfD ratio. If you don't care, fine. For me, if I make a nomination under a rationale and it fails, I'd take the aggregate's rebuke seriously. So, for you to say that you don't care sounds like you didn't believe in the case you were making. AfD isn't a method of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. I was offering advice to help you, which I guess isn't wanted. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey RobP i came here to sympathize about Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida) in a friendly way, which I think is what User:Chris troutman was meaning here too. I don't understand everything Chris troutman is saying but agree with the general gist of it;  he is sharing about how hard it is sometimes with AFDs when a bunch of wp:inclusionists get riled up, as happened here, and he is trying to suggest how to be more successful.  I am an inclusionist myself, but i am feeling a bit cranky and commented negatively about the NRHP articles having existed 10 years without improvement.  I mostly work on NRHP articles.  Me and the other NRHP editors have succeeded perhaps too well in convincing others that "if NRHP then good sources exist, so Keep" (even without the sources being included).  I wouldn't advise trying to get any NRHP articles deleted, as will probably fail, although I do agree the category you pointed to, of houses in Florida (almost all NRHPs) is quite bad quality.  FYI, it is especially bad because [Wikipedia's] NRHP coverage in Florida is the poorest of anywhere:  there are about 2800 NRHP articles nationwide which a bot detects and labels with "NRIS-only" tag identifying as being very minimal;  one quarter of those, 780 recently, are in Florida (which is about 1/2 of all Florida NRHP articles being minimal, a far higher percentage than anywhere else, [despite NRHP nomination documents actually being available online for almost all Florida NRHPs, but not used]).  The bot statistics are at WikiProject NRHP workspace page wp:NRHPPROGRESS, by the way.  Hope this helps give some perspective somehow.  Cheers, -- do  ncr  am  00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is also now ongoing Articles for deletion/Suydam House about another NRHP article. -- do ncr  am  22:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Burnham Jr. Photo?

 * Made reply on article's Talk page. RobP (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On 12/14/17 Tony Ortega sent me a photo he is owner of and I had him email Commons their license verification form. Just now I uploaded the photo to Commons and added it to the info-box.RobP (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: ATT Network block of IP 107.77.224.0/22
Hi Rob, I blocked that range because of how quickly IP addresses change within it, making it very easy for vandalism to slip by unnoticed or improperly reverted. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_generation_VI_Pok%C3%A9mon&action=history this page history] (from my edit onwards) for an example of this). A lot of edits from that range are also vandalism. I think the vandalism risk is outweighed by the collateral damage in this case. As you said, users affected by that block can still log in to edit; it's also possible for them to create an account if need be. Graham 87 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

David Paulides page
I am not trying to start trouble, but I have some concern with the page on David Paulides. I don't think that it is a fair representation of him or his work. I totally understand and support skepticism, but I think in this case, it is a bit bias. Specifically, I'm referring to his missing 411 books. Reading through the information there, it seems as if it is intended to discredit him, instead of provide information about his work. I have personally read all of the missing 411 series and the information he presents is all fact based. The skeptics quoted were inaccurate in their portrayal, and they obviously had predetermined conclusions on the validity that influenced their reviews. He never once purported to know a cause or causes of the disappearances discussed, furthermore, he goes to great lengths to explain that he only listed and wrote about cases that fit a certain criteria of unexplainable circumstances. Which is contrary to what was said by one or more of the skeptics quoted. I won't take up any more of your time bringing up examples of how they are being misleading, but I would appreciate it if you could look into this a little further and maybe correct some of these things.

Again, I'm not trying to be one of those egotistical guys, that thinks they know better, or gets off of on finding and pointing out perceived mistakes. I'm just pointing it out because I think it's a misrepresentation of his work. I also believe that people need to be made aware of the things he discusses so that they can be more careful when visiting the outdoors. I know his intentions are to educate people, not to frighten them. Thank you, regardless of what you end up doing with this information, I appreciate you taking the time to read this and hear my thoughts. -Dustin Dustin sharber (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am copying this to the Talk page for the article in question as that is a more appropriate place to discuss the topic. 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe
Hi Rp2006! With David Wolfe, Forbes.com contributors are regarded as self-published sources, as they are more akin to bloggers with almost no editorial oversight. Thus, per WP:BLPSPS, we can't use articles by Forbes contributors to source material about living people. It tends to catch editors out, as the Forbes name would suggest that it is reliable, but the contributors are different and separate to their staff. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please link to a WP article verifying your claim. RobP (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP lists Frobes.com as "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources" - there have been numerous discussions about this on WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. As there is minimal to no oversight of Forbes.com contributor posts, and as they post directly, it is seen as self published, and cannot be used as sources of material about a living person other than the author. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also brought this issue up on the David Wolfe talk page here. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

AN3
I criticized you at AN3, you are not the subject of the report, but I still think you should know. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the discussion in the link you provided is not easy to follow, and I see no reference to me at all. What was I accused of doing? RobP (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the diffs I linked in my last comment was you making an unexplained revert. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Kenny Biddle (Round 2)
I'm not convinced addition of the NYT article by itself is enough of a difference to change people's minds. Looking over the old AfD, I see a few felt the article was self-promotional. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon with both good and bad articles at AfD: if it reads like an admiring writer milked every source for trivial details, people will vote against it on the basis that the editor is probably trying to promote someone or something, even though it is adequately sourced. If you would consent to let me take a hatchet to your draft article, I might be able to trim and copyedit enough to mitigate the impression of promotion. You could always revert to your old version if you disagree with my edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Go for it! RobP (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I took it as far as I can go today. Although I may fix typos and tweak a little later tonight. Understatement is the key to successful encyclopedic bio writing. Unless your subject is someone who has 10 books written about them, better to go with unadorned facts. Note that I cut out all the personal trivia; things like the first time he met Randi, or the first time he went to a psychic, or his favorite color (kidding). Also, I only gave a cursory look to the references, so I can't guarantee they're bulletproof. You should cite the highest quality sources you have, and be very stingy with selfpub and fringe sources, avoiding them if you can. And I haven't closely examined the bibliography. You may want to remove stuff published on GhostTheory etc. and keep only solid mainstream publishing.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Will take a deeper look tonight, but at a quick look-over I see you deleted the section I started for the NYT material and citation which I thought was critical to trying again at this time. Why?? RobP (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any cite to the NYT article, just the CSI article. But I will create and add the cite and see if any details from Kenny's paras are worth extracting for other sections.(BTW, showcasing the name of the publication in the article text, e.g. "...which was covered by The New York Times in February 2019. According to Jack Hitt..." comes off to reviewers as desperate to prove notability, 'Look! He was mentioned in the New York Times! By a writer! ) From my reading of the NYT story, the story is about Susan and her sting ops. Kenny and wife appear as details, so it's not the critical difference that's going to put you over the top in terms of changing reviewers minds about notability. The bigger problem was too much fancruft, which made the article appear fawning rather than encyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, added details from the NYT magazine story that were relevant. I think that's about all we can realistically squeeze from it. Yes, it's cute that he wears a Thor's Hammer charm. But please don't include that unless you want the article to be compared to something found in Tiger Beat ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh you are funny... I had just pasted in all the text from the NYT article about Kenny as a temp thing to have it all there to figure out what to use! Def not the hammer.
 * Update: read it over in detail and had to change just a few things, mostly concerning the description of Biddle's role in the sting. Thanks so much. You did an amazing job! Now the problem of getting it republished. I started to do that and ran into a wall. It seems because of the AfD there is a problematic process to make it live, that needs to involve the admin who closed the AfD. Trouble is he is retired! Amazingly, the process does NOT cover this scenario, so I asked what to do at the Teahouse. RobP (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good move. Hope it will be reconsidered. BTW, I never read the *entire* DRV discussion until just now. Weird. And a lot of michegas about possible WP:SPA votes. Maybe that’s why recreation is protected []. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely seemed unfair. I was so upset at how that went down. Especially because I could never get the actual points of my arguments about notability (which were seconded by some others) answered by the Delete voters. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Well I have resubmitted it - hopefully correctly. The procedure description is anything but clear. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

John Edward
Just wanted to explain more about this revert. Totally agree with your wording, in substance, but the placement there is problematic, in that the editing out of misses wasn't a part of the portrayal of the show, nor does it belong as part of the official premise of the show, nor is it supported by the citation there, which is just to the show itself. It's true that the episodes did contain all kinds of supportive testimonies from audience members interspersed between segments. That said, I do see the editing criticism down in the skepticism section; if you have even more material, it'd be great to add it down there with the source(s). Grandpallama (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Gua sha
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gua sha. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain
Could you explain what you meant here? It does not seem like a truthful request to me. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was attempting - as I said in my original edit today - to put the article back to its state of Feb 17th, so that (as I said) it could be incrementally improved again with consensus. After Feb 17th, Littleghostboo made edits that to me looked like Littleghostboo was removing valid skeptical content (Science-Based Medicine, etc). But it was hard to see between Littleghostboo and your edits what was going on. It looked to me that you were supporting Littleghostboo in this effort. Though I do not agree with your approach, I see now you were not. RobP (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just poking around to attempt to find instructions on how to notify admins that I'd like the the lock lifted, and I can find no instructions on how to do that. Any ideas? RobP (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As the article was protected at THERIGHTVERSION is there any point in unprotection when it will be automatically unprotected in a week? If you still want to unprotect, request at RFPP. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Rp2006/sandbox/Deconverted


Hello, Rp2006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Deconverted".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 02:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Canine cancer detection
My mistake, read that way too quickly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. 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, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nikkei's Top Ten Most Excellent Companies in Japan
Hey, it didn't occur to me to ping you, but I would sincerely urge you to retract your nomination here and close the nomination as speedy keep. There's no realistic way the article is going to get deleted at this point, and it just makes you look like a better Wikipedian if you can admit a mistake. The kind of people who persistently double down when it's been pointed out that they are wrong are just the worst kind of people, who really should not be allowed edit Wikipedia at all, and yet a surprising proportion of the community (at least the ones active on several high-traffic fora I could mention) appear to be those kind of people. Taking this opportunity to say "I'm not one of them" would mean you get to come out on top even though your nomination failed, rather than just allowing the nomination to run a week and failing anyway. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles
hi...can you please tell me why you reverted my edit? You didn't leave any explanation. Thanks.Justbean (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. It was a long string of changes all done in one big edit, and a quick review showed at least some of it was VERY problematic. I had no time to look at each part individually, so did a global undo. Some of the most problematic issues were that you added material without citations, including the long addition to the end of the Origins section. As well as this tabloid-like material: "...and Schucman was married, but was rumored to have been in love with Thetford, who was believed to have been gay." RobP (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! And for the clarity :)  I thought I cited everything...will go back and take a look.  Most of the info came from the LA Times.  The other source was People Magazine...I've seen it used as a source a lot, didn't think it'd be an issue. Will take another look.  Again...thanks!Justbean (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots
Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Can you answer this question?

Assessment of your articles
Hi there, Rp2006. As you've shown interest in some of my recent article assessments, I thought I would look at some of your own work. I must say your detailed, well researched biographies are pretty impressive. As you will see, I've upgraded those deserving better ratings. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well thank you! Rp2006 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Stokes
Thanks for the change to 'self-proclaimed'. You're right. It's better - and more accurate. However, it clashes with the word 'claimed' which I use just before it. I might alter that, just to make it less....you know. If you get there first, feel free. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK... I changed claimed to a synonym so it will read better. RobP (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Stokes, Take 2.
Good job. No need for an edit block, though. I think we're on the same side here. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

MkNbTrD0086 (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Quantum biology
In case you still are interested in that article, I recently replied to you at Talk:Quantum biology. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will take a look and respond if appropriate. RobP (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Canine cancer detection
Your edit to Canine cancer detection has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikki Turner page
Hi there, I was wondering what your thinking is about the flags on this article? It would be helpful if you added your thoughts to the talk page. I am trying to fix it up and looking for as much sensible advice as possible.Realitylink (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look here and saw nothing obvious. RobP (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Overlink
We don’t in-line American per wp:overlink. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F864:46D5:206E:4DA0 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Simone Gold
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)"
 * Hey... I created the page for America's Frontline Doctors, the org started by Gold, but not the Gold article. I did edit it, but that's the extent of my involvement. So I am curious as to why I got this DYK notification. was the original editor. RobP (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your DYK hook about anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold drew 10,996 page views (916 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Did you know/Statistics. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted directly above, I had little to do with this page. Can you explain why I was notified and then congratulated? RobP (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The DYK submission template (Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold) identified you as one of the articles creators. That is why you received the two notifications. I apologize for any inconvenience. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Craig Hamilton-Parker
If you are reverting someone to put your edit back on an article a second time, I would generally recommend checking the article's talk page to see their comments there before performing the revert, as opposed to after (as you have done on Craig Hamilton-Parker). jp×g 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Flat Earth
sorry about the typos--I'll redo it when I've got some sleep -- but Thanks for notifying me. I need people to notice when I make errors.  DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Chupacabra
I'm not doubting you but could you add a note of explanation on the talk page? Madelyne Tolentino didn't claim to see the creature until August. The first reports were in March. Again, not arguing just asking for clarification Wickedjacob (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * retracted I understand my confusion now. reports of mutilation vs. report of seeing the creature.  Wickedjacob (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Dybbuk box
Would you mind if I made some edits to the article that I recommended at the AfD? Not sure when I'll get to it, but thought I'd ask. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Thanks for asking! RobP (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Landsat 6 revert
Hello! You reverted my edit to the Landsat 6 page, writing: Citations cannot be to other WP pages… but I had not added citations to Wikipedia pages.

There were two citation needed labels, one on The Enhanced Thematic Mapper was designed and manufactured by Santa Barbara Research Center., and the other on Landsat 6 was launched aboard a Titan II launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base on October 5, 1993.. Both of these facts are documented on the official Landsat website, which was already linked to but using an archived link instead of the current version of the page – which still documents these facts. Isn't that what we want here? You put back an old version of the page, on a non-WaybackMachine archive site, removed the two citations I had taken care of documenting, and commented "Citations cannot be to other WP pages" when nothing of the sort had been done here.

We are unfortunately back to an article with to requested citations when a live and current page for the Landsat 6 program documents these facts.

I don't understand this revert, and the seemingly off-topic note about citing WP pages. Please explain how this was wrong and how this was citing "other WP pages". Nffwp (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NZ Skeptics


The article NZ Skeptics has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No notability asserted by sources, almost entirely SPS or partisan."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Placing this here as a matter of record: The above user was banned for 3 months from ANI for disruptive editing there (as well perhaps due to trying to speedy delete skeptic-themed articles inappropriately). Rp2006 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thomas John Flanagan edit discussion
Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Thomas John Flanagan, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  The source makes no mention of pleading to a felony, or being convicted of a felony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I used the source from the article main text about the fellony... I will double check if it is in error. RobP (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in error. Good job. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes. Except for you I guess - except when you misrepresented why you made that edit, making no mention of the citation being insufficient (which would have made sense), but just that old news doesn't belong in the lead (wrong) ("undue for lead. Single issue over a decade ago."). RobP (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the page history, where I removed it from the article body. I made it clear I was removing the felony information based on BLP grounds. I make plenty of mistakes, and try to apologize for them. It happens. I still disagree that a 10 year old conviction with almost no coverage is due for the lead, but that's a separate issue entirely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

SPS from a non RS is not appropriate on WP
Could you please explain what you mean by "SPS from a non RS is not appropriate on WP"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader of Thiaoouba Prophecy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Bringing it to the article's Talk though. Rp2006 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Center for Inquiry Investigations Group for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Inquiry Investigations Group 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/Center for Inquiry Investigations Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CFIIG logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:CFIIG logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice. More harassment. Rp2006 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Levivich 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't think it does. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Rp2006 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happens to all of us. It's a normal part of editing in topic areas under discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration Workshop follow-up
Hi Rp. I'm User:Barkeep49, a member of the Arbitration Committee. I saw your recent concern about the allegation leveled against you in the workshop phase of the "Skepticism and coordinated editing" case to which you are a party. After consulting with the other drafting arbitrators, I have collapsed that discussion as it seems that Bilby has indeed withdrawn the allegation against you. I know you are likley unfamiliar with Arbitration so just a couple of notes on how Arbitration Cases work differently than other areas of Wikipedia. Only Arbitrators and Arbitration clerks may manage situations (as I did here by collapsing the section) so admins will generally do nothing, even when pinged. Further, as a party to the case you are invited, encouraged even, to participate. But please do so in the section labeled "Comment by parties". If you have any follow-up questions please don't hesitate to ask me here, on my talk page, or via email (either directly or to the Arbitration Committee). Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Barkeep49. Your edit at the Withdrawn statement and follow-up discussion happened to be at the top of my watchlist an hour ago and I had a look. I have some thoughts for Rp2006 because I saw the ping to me. First, as Barkeep49 says, arbitration pages are strictly run and there should be no bickering. Back-and-forth that occurs on other pages is off-limits there which is just as well because such bickering only makes the bickerer look bad. On a minor issue, your ping did not work, presumably because you either added the ping or corrected the ping in an edit to your comment. A notification has to be in a new comment with a new signature. A standard fix for a botched ping is to add a new very brief comment saying something like "fix ping" (although you're not fixing it, you are adding a new ping in a new comment with a new signature). Re the issue, the diff is known to all the participants and I assume you are familiar with the claims concerning Sharon A. Hill. That is not a matter for discussion on Wikipedia—if you have something to say about it, email Arbcom. Any email should be brief and focused on the specific issue, namely whether you have a COI regarding a reference added to an article ("Rp2006 has directly added citations to their own work"). Wikipedia is a forgiving place—the standard is not "has everything this editor done been perfect?". Instead, the question is "if there has been a problem, is it likely to keep happening?". That's what Arbcom wants to know: Has there been a problem, and if so, will it keep happening? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How does one email Arbcom? Rp2006 (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See User:Arbitration Committee. I don't see an "email this user" link in the left sidebar on this talk page (your talk). That means you do not have an email account entered in your preferences. It's not a problem to have email enabled at Wikipedia: no one is going to spam you or sell the email address. If you went to your preferences (see link at top right of any page) you could enter an email address. Bear in mind that if you ever reply to an email that you receive because someone has emailed you using Wikipedia, the recipient will see your email address. Many of us use an anonymous email address (something@gmail.com is common) for that purpose. There is a known email address for Arbcom which is also at the page I linked, if you don't want to enable email here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please verify that my email has now been correctly set up to work in WP, and I will send one this weekend. Thanks! Rp2006 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks good because I can now see "email this user". To give you the theory, suppose there are two users, A and B, each with email enabled. If A uses email this user on B's page, Wikipedia will send an email from A to B. That means B learns A's email address, but A does not yet know B's address. If B replies to A, A then learns B's address. As always, email should be treated with great suspicion: don't click a link sent in an email, and don't necessarily believe anything that an email says, including who it says the sender is. I repeat that any email to Arbcom should be brief and focused on a particular point. Don't ramble about opponents. Just say whatever you have to say and provide any links (not wikilinks, but full URLs that would work in a browser). Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rp2006 you can email us by going to this link (though I think as John says you must have email enabled for that) or by emailing . Your email gets seen a little faster if you use Wikipedia email than if you send an email directly. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A followup to this comment:
 * Johnuniq remains the wrong person to ask to resolve an issue you believe exists. You have already been informed as such above in Barkeep's original message. Please do not ping Johnuniq again.
 * The point of the workshop is to provide suggestions about how the final decision should look. It is not a place where what is stated is necessarily true or false or even relevant to the case.
 * You may wish to review Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Izno (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No more pinging. But I have to say, "It is not a place where what is stated is necessarily true or false" makes the entire ArbCom process seem deeply problematic. In the real world, there are ramifications if someone does that. One can't just go around claiming so-and-so did something bad without providing evidence, or their would be consequences. What you seem to be saying is that on WP, at least in the ArbCom process, anything goes, and there is no recourse. Rp2006 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Rp2006. Let me qualify my colleague Izno's note a bit. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks (WP:NPA) and harassment (WP:HARASS), explained a bit further in WP:ASPERSIONS and summarized on the workshop page itself right at the top in "Expected standards of behavior". You should read those links to understand the exact contours of the policy, but essentially it is improper to make . As you noted, an editor did so by mistake earlier today, and their contribution was collapsed by an arbitrator. If you believe that someone is not living up to those standards, you can bring it to the attention of the Committee and especially the clerks (as I see other editors have already advised you). The case clerks for this case are listed at the top of every case page, and you can also email . We make all this really clear across various notices, policies, and messages, and we invest a huge amount of time – volunteered by busy people just like you – into making it happen.
 * What Izno is pointing out is that differences in opinion regarding what evidence proves are inevitable, and the Workshop is one place where editors air those differences. But simply because someone thinks something is incorrect on that page is not a good enough reason for ArbCom to take action unless it breaches the standards of behavior as I have described them above. The sole purpose of the Workshop phase is to provide arbitrators with relevant information, and if something is unimportant or incorrect, we don't remove it (with all the attendant drama) unless it breaches the standards – the Committee merely ignores it instead. And once the proposed decision comes out, no one will ever care about it again.
 * I understand that you are frustrated, and that arbitration is not an enjoyable process; I thank you for engaging with it. I do need to say that interpreting Izno's note as saying that is not an accurate reflection either of his writing or of the many notes and documentation pages that have been provided to you by editors affiliated and unaffiliated with ArbCom. All drafting arbitrators in this case have now weighed in in this thread alone in an effort to help, which is highly unusual in any arbitration case, and I would ask that you respond to us with the level of collegiality and good faith that you expect of us in turn. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Workshop procedures
You recently commented at the workshop, with a ping to me: diff. If you comment, it must be very mild with no indignation or other emotion. Stick to the facts. Do not mention me or any other editor as if our opinions mattered—they don't. At an arbitration case, the only people who matter are the arbitrators. Re the assertions you replied to, I have no idea what is being suggested. I searched the evidence and workshop pages for mention of "Dybbuk" but was not enlightened. There is mention on the evidence page but again I have no idea what the claim is. You should ask yourself whether you have any possible COI regarding The Dybbuk box. For example, did you write any of the references used? Have you interacted with the authors of any of the references used? (These are rhetorical questions—I do not want an answer.) If, after consideration, you believe you don't have the slightest COI, just state that in simple and direct language in the workshop. Next, you should consider how you came to be aware of the article and think about whether your comments might have been misleading, even if only slightly. I checked the article history. Your first edits were on 15 January 2019 at article talk, and the article: diff + diff. You didn't edit it again until 2021. The fact that you edited the article three years ago makes it even harder to see what the claims against you are. Again, if wanted, you could state what I've said as a plain fact with no emotion (don't mention me—I'm not relevant).

You should strongly avoid the temptation to ping an arbitrator because they are super busy. However, if you want to discuss whether material on the workshop page should be either justified or removed, you could post a new section on workshop talk and ping one of the case clerks—see the list at the top of the workshop page. If you do that, stick to the facts and ask a simple question. If they do not see a need to take action, you must drop the matter. Bear in mind that what onlookers think is irrelevant. The arbitrators will discuss the case among themselves and if they think the claims are unjustified, they will ignore them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I replied to Izno above before seeing this. But I do take issue with statements about truth or fiction not mattering here and also that what onlookers think is irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to the admins deciding a case, but just like IRL, people on WP have reputations to maintain. People being free to make false, unsubstantiated claims about the behavior of others, that are now part of the public record, seems a dubious policy. Rp2006 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it helps, but as far as I am concerned, the edit reflects badly not on your reputation but on Geogene's. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment in wrong place at Talk:Sharon A. Hill?
Hey, I think you might have put reply into the wrong discussion section? It doesn't seem like it's responding to a comment made back in December, and reads more relevant to the stuff in Discussion 3. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that Rob is hitting the nail on the head in that comment, (I read it in isolation without context), I have noted exactly the same things there, and found that trying to correct them to be not worth the effort against the torrent of verbiage. Grrr. If the comment is in the wrong place, I'm sure that Rob will do the right thing. -Roxy the dog . wooF 18:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So I moved my rebuttal to a separate section, and it had been deleted. Is this valid? I commented on the editor's talk page here. Pinging, , and for opinions. Rp2006 (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, per WP:NOTAFORUM and the whole contributor rather than content thing. It's always sketchy to remove someone else's comments, but I imagine if it went to a noticeboard it would be found to be an acceptable removal, though I could be wrong. I would suggest shrugging it off, as the only thing worse than making a post like that a day before the arbcom decision would be edit warring over it or drawing additional attention to it at a noticeboard. Obviously, that's just my take on it, ymmv. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been watching here. Generally, it's a bad idea to post on an article talk page about a particular editor in a way that critiques what that editor has been doing. It's the idea of "comment on the content, not the contributor". But it's OK to say that you have become tired (or whatever words you would like to use for that), and therefore are no longer bothering to contest the issue. On the other hand, I did this:, and there is discussion about that here: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't have removed it myself, though I would have recommended rasing that issue at the proper noticeboard and advised self removal of a personal attack on another editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That was an oops, I moved the commentary to a new section as it actually applies to the entire (ongoing) fiasco. Rp2006 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I know you don't like me, and maybe I'm the wrong person to say this, but a day before the preliminary decision is due in an arb case to which you're a party may not be the best time to post a long comment on an article talk page focusing on a contributor rather than content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey. Liking you or otherwise is not an issue. And in this case you’re probably right. But a certain editor’s attitudes and approach simply galls me. I hope you said the same thing to her about her continuing to edit the same page where all of this started right before the Arbcom decision. Rp2006 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've said similar things to her a number of times. If I wasn't on my phone right now I'd pull some diffs for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for trying! Rp2006 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh... I found this. I don't know the background, but it is good to see evidence it's not just her and I having disputes. Rp2006 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Read into the context around that, and you'll probably have a different view of ACS. She has done everything possible in those discussions to help an editor who is pushing something against consensus. If it's evidence of anything, it's that she tried to prevent conflict. That editor is pretty heated because consensus is against them on something they believe strongly about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be an honest to goodness miracle if anything at this point could significantly alter my opinion of ACS - at least of her value to the project - but thanks for pointing this out! Perhaps sometime I'll find the time to figure out what that exchange was all about. Rp2006 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail
Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
 * Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
 * Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Havana syndrome
Hey Rp2006. Thanks for your edits at Havana syndrome. One of your edits, this one, appears to me as a violation of your topic ban. I think it's reasonable to think that Bartholomew is "associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed". Any chance I can convince you to self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Due to the construction of the statement "...from edits related to living people ..." (where living people links to the definition of a BLP) I had assumed I was not able to edit the BLP article of people in this (broad) category, and not that this applied MUCH more broadly to me making an improvement to a page where such a person is mentioned. Am I wrong? If so, I need more clarification. For example, if a scientist is quoted in the NYT, am I not permitted to add anything to any article at all using that info? That seems out of bounds of the issues discussed in the ArbCom which all involved edits to a few BLP pages. Regarding this edit itself, in my opinion, the description given was not applicable to why RB was cited here, so I exchanged it for a more applicable description from his page. Do you disagree with that assessment? Rp2006 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A reasonable question. I'll share my opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification from one of the enacting admins. It might be wise to self-revert while waiting on an answer. Much of the DS-related language uses an "articles about" and "edits related to" framing. The point is to cover both articles primarily about the topic area and related edits in other articles. I think the "edits related to" in your TBAN evokes this language, which is present in slightly different terms at WP:BLPDS. So, yes, I see the TBAN in broad terms. To be clear, I think your edit was a clear improvement, and I might as well tell you that I intend to re-add it if you self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a deal. Done. Rp2006 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good luck with negotiating your TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note on this, it'll apply on talk pages, noticeboard discussions, or anywhere else. Sorry to drop in, but I wouldn't want to see you stumble into an issue due the line. Also, thanks FFF for bringing this to their talk page before any shenanigans could happen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you self-reverted another one, and I took a look at it, and the source does support the prose. But the two are so fond of each other that Boghossian wrote the foreword to one of Molyneux’s books, while Molyneux provides a promotional blurb for Boghossian’s book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

AE notice
I noticed some violations of your topic ban, and have filed an AE here. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been busy with IRL personal matters and just saw all this. So glad you are stalking me (again). It's fortunate that wiser heads prevailed. Rp2006 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I got dragged into an ArbCom case over your misconduct, and you were sanctioned for it, I think I have a particular interest in maing sure that those sanctions are enforced. The wiser heads concluded that you broke your topic ban, but that it was too minor to result in an enforcement action. This time. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that you were given stern warnings Geogene.
 * "I agree the first diff should not be considered a violation - the editor was obviously topic banned for issues relating to being able to handle BLP issues - I don't think we've ever held that adding a reference written by a BLP was a violation of a topic ban on editing about BLPs - which, if we did, would be ridiculous in the extreme. The second diff is, as others have pointed out, a technical violation, but it's edge-case enough that I can't work up a lot of energy to block someone over it. Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed if the filer had pointed out the possibility of it being an error to Rp2006 first so they could possibly revert it and learn from the error, rather than coming right here seeking a sanction. And combining it was the reference edit just makes it look like waiting to pounce on anything in an effort to get rid of an opponent. And the dragging of Johnuniq into this is just ... more concerning about the filer. I suggest that they dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND feel here... Ealdgyth"
 * " and that is especially true given how trivial the single breach is. All that needs to happen is for Rp2006 to be made aware that the second diff was technically a violation of their topic ban so they know not to do it again; and for Geogene to be formally reminded of the purpose of AE. Thryduulf"
 * "The first diff is definitely not a violation. Construing the topic ban in this way would essentially ban adding any reference to any article in the scientific skepticism space; definitely not what the topic ban is meant to be. The second diff does seem a violation since adding a living person to the see also is definitely an edit about them. But it's quite a minor violation so I don't think anything needs to be done beyond clarifying that the restriction applies here. Galobtter"
 * "Yeah I definitely am getting WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes from the filing and am frankly more concerned about the filing than the edits. Galobtter"
 * Your signoff "This time." speaks volumes @Geogene - Move on Sgerbic (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was planning another trip there. I do hope that rp2006 understands his topic ban by now, though? They're not that hard to understand, are they? Don't write about your real world enemies (or cronies). Geogene (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious from your statement and past actions that you plan on continuing to patrol. And YES read the comments from those that responded to you reporting him, the topic ban is vague and it is not clear. You did read the responses right? Because I'm not sure you understand what they said or the main take away was that what he did was so trivial as to be odd that it was being reported on that site asking for sanctions. Secondly, it was crystal clear from their comments that they are putting YOU on notice. And your attack on Johnuniq was bizarre and conspiratorial. Something that was also noted by their comments. Here let me link to the conversation for you to read. and to the odd post on Johnuniq's talk page  Sgerbic (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What? The topic ban is perfectly clear, except perhaps for people that might be motivated to not understand it. If he still doesn't understand it, he can ask to explain it to him again. Geogene (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is certainly constructive and a good use of everyone's time, but I think you've communicated what you were trying to. I think it would be best if you let it drop for now. This discussion is only going to descend further the longer it goes on, and arguing for arguments sake isn't a good look for anyone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think Geogene is understanding clearly how others see their behavior. I purposely did not tag Johnuniq in this conversation as I don't think that continuing this discussion will help anyone. Sadly, despite being warned, it is clear that Geogene will continue their behavior. Sgerbic (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC).


 * Hey! Did you get the email I sent several weeks ago as a reply? Rp2006 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please self revert
Would you be so kind as to self revert this edit, which is a violation of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And how is referring to a Wiki page as an example of something existing on WP (in a talk comment on another article) a violation? Rp2006 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because you're referring to a BLP associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. And the topic ban is from any edit related to BLPs associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interest of civility I will revert, but the “broadly construed” and “related to” wording of that ban was and is a recipe for over-constraining my edits to the point of ridiculousness beyond all reason. In other words, the line in the sand drawn by those ambiguous phrases is very fuzzy, and that fact unfairly restrains what I can do. Rp2006 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that fuzzy, just don't make any edit that mentions, or is related to, any living person or person that had recently died associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism. Something like There are also no such things as Psychics and Mediums:, yet many of the bios for such people persist in defining those claiming to be such as exactly that. Just one example: Thomas John (medium) ticks all of the boxes. It is an edit about a biography of a living person who claims they are a psychic. It's not even a borderline case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you don’t think the terms of this are fuzzy… Let me tell you why I do. Here’s an example… It turns out I am the original creator of the TJ article - as is mentioned on my own user page. So according to you, if I make an edit in the area where I’m talking about that page on my own page, I am in violation. In fact, if I link to it right here on my talk page, just to make it clear what page we’re talking about (as you just did), according to you that’s a violation too I presume.  Rp2006 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Editing in the area near a pre-existing mention wouldn't be a violation. Linking to your own user page is fine if you're not specifically mentioning a BLP associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism. Making an edit where you specifically mention biographies of people who are of interest to scientific skepticism, then link to one of those articles, definitely is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all this, I appreciate you self reverting. If you have any questions about the extent of your topic ban, asking for clarification is exempt. There are plenty of administrators you can reach out to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert request
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert! Rp2006 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rp! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * OK. I have reverted! But the podcast does indeed belong! It contains a recent interview by the data scientist knowledgeable about Missing 411, on a podcast run by a WP Notable skeptic, and the conspiracy theory is discussed in great detail. So why do you think you would not keep it? Rp2006 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Rp. I don't oppose adding the podcast. I just haven't looked into it. I worry that discussing it here further is unwise.
 * FYI, the ping didn't work, even with you re-signing the comment. I recommend using one of the methods in H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Answer to your question on Sound of Freedom (film)
It looks like the page was created as someone trying to do promotion for the film in 2020 (seriously that first page is just promotional ad copied in). It was not released until this year because Fox was acquired by Disney and then Ballard's group went out to find a new distributor. 73.115.150.77 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation! Rp2006 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Cortex deletion
Hey so I saw your deletion tag for Cortex (journal). I removed it after adding two citations and adding a reference. In the future, I'd recommend adding a maintenance tag requesting additional sources rather than immediately jumping to deletion. The page clearly met the basic notability criteria for an academic journal. Mason (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Lucky Girl syndrome" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucky_Girl_syndrome&redirect=no Lucky Girl syndrome] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

New Age beliefs sidebar
Please be more discriminating when placing this template. You put it on the article of the 1901 book Cosmic Consciousness, which predates the New Age movement by 70 years. New Age is a movement and genre which started in the 1970s. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to articles about the New Thought movement, which started in the 19th century. Skyerise (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to articles about concepts like the subtle body, which is part of Theosophy, another 19th-century NRM. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Interesting POV if true. Can you provide a source for the claim you are making here, basically that all beliefs considered New Age must have originated AT THE TIME or after the new age movement began, and cannot include beliefs that preexisted that date and were adopted by people calling themselves New Age? Rp2006 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You've got that backwards. Any article that is represented as a New Age practice must back that up with supporting text about how it is a New Age practice, who considers it so, and what New Age groups or practitioners practice it, along with supporting citations. Any article that does not should not be in the category in the first place. All categories, as well as nav templates, etc. must be supported by the articles they reference. "New Age" is not a synonym for alternative, fringe, occult, or spiritual. It is a specific socio-cultural movement and genre which began in the 1970s. I just recently cleaned up the related categories and templates of articles which do not support inclusion with both text and citations that they are considered "New Age". Until supporting material is added to these articles, no template should claim them as "New Age". Templates don't normally include citations so the article itself must. For further details on this aspect of policy, see WP:CATCITE. Skyerise (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Is there any more WP guidance regarding the proper use and proper context of sidebars? That word appears just once in all of the WP:CATCITE you linked to. So it is not at all clear to me the interplay between what that page is all about - categories - and what you are taking exception with: my adding those sidebars. Rp2006 (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Categories, list articles, and navigation templates don't include citations, so the articles they link to must support their inclusion. See also WP:BIDI - nav templates should only be added to articles for links which are included in the template. See also Navigation_template, which states "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." So a "New Age" nav template should only link to articles in Category:New Age, and articles in that category must support their inclusion with cited discussion of the reasons and sources that support that inclusion. Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban violations
This and this are both topic ban violations. Have you thought about appealing your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight... you are claiming that editing something in my own sandbox is a violation, and adding a page to a project I am a part of is a violation? Rp2006 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:TBAN lays it out pretty clearly. It applies everywhere. And adding wikiproject skepticism to the talk page of a BLP is pretty much a crystal clear violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * These statements seems SO counterintuitive -- esp the bit about editing in one's own sandbox -- that I need you to supply a clearer citation (not just "pretty clearly") for both before I could believe them. Rp2006 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TBAN, the banning policy says: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".
 * A talk page of an article about a living person who is of interest to the skeptical community is a page broadly related to your topic ban, especially as your were marking them as of interest to the skeptical community. The same applies to your sandbox, which is covered by all pages (not only articles). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would submit that if the intent is to cover EVEN non-public pages such as a sandbox, that should be specifically listed to make it clear. In any case, I no longer need that sandbox so I will delete it. And it seems someone (coincidently?) reverted my addition of that other page to the project, although their reason strikes me as ludicrous in the extreme.Rp2006 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Rp. Further down in WP:TBAN, sandboxes are mentioned explicitly. There's much about being banned that is counterintuitive, but you really need to understand the terms of your own sanction and ask questions if you're unsure. I'm speaking as someone who hopes to see a successful future appeal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So sandbox is  referenced there... Well thanks for pointing it out.     I still think it's a crazy policy... And the problem with it is: it's not a published page so I could have just changed the name on it to a name not of interest "broadly construed" to the skeptical community and repurposed the page -- even to a topic and not a BLP - w/o anyone caring. But just adding a comment there leaving the current name as the title turns into a violation. How does THAT make any sense? Oh, now I am wondering if doing the edit on the page to add the deletion request is also technically a violation and needs to be reverted?) Rp2006 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all a bit behind us now, but in general I wouldn't (as an admin) worry about edits that are clearly more about disengagement from a topic (blanking, deletion, etc.) than further engagement with it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AE report on your edits
I have made a report at AE about your topic ban violations. The section is Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARCA request
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Rp2006. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * As per standard procedure, the first year of this block is an arbitration enforcement sanction and would be appealed per that process. Following that, it converts into a standard administrative sanction, and may be appealed as detailed in the guide to appealing blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The above arbitration enforcement block has been assumed by the Arbitration Committee by motion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding block of Rp2006
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: