User talk:Rsradford

Discussion: Rsradford
Welcome!

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

And now, my own words outside of that template:

Figured I would give you the standard 'Welcome' template links. If you actually get serious with editing here, I will send you my old list of useful stuff from when I had an account on Wikipedia.

-P-


 * Grazzi.
 * -R.

Viktor Rydberg COI/NPOV issue
Can you tell me if any action is pending on this?
 * Oops. Sorry about that: I commented briefly while busy, and forget to check back to see if anyone else was following it. It's a difficult one: while the edits are definitely tendentious, for WP:COI to stick it needs some explicit giveaway that the anon is the person in question. Unless I've missed something, I can't see one. We're not really allowed to speculate about identity (however suggestive the urge to include books by a particular author may be).
 * It often helps just to get more editors involved. You could raise it at any of the associated Wikiprojects. For instance, WikiProject LGBT studies ought to take an interest in this repeated airbrushing-out of references to his sexuality. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Rsradford. Can you add to your COI report the name of the author (or translator) whose work is being promoted? Since we have an IP-hopping anonymous editor here, we might be able to justify semi-protection for certain articles if we could establish to everyone's satisfaction that the actions of the anonymous editor are abusive. The other idea is that he could be blocked for deleting others' comments from Talk pages, though he hasn't done that from his latest account.  EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Don't post personal attacks at WP:COIN
Rsradford, I undid your latest edit at the noticeboard. You realize that administators patrol that noticeboard, right? You and Jack can both be blocked if you continue in that tone. Rephrase whatever you wanted to say without commenting on the character of the editor. If needed I will remove the other guy's personal attacks as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''Consider this a last warning. If you revert again, you will be blocked. Please resolve the discussion on the talk page; see Dispute resolution.'' PeterSymonds (talk)  16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks
If we wish to foster a collaborative editing environment it is vital that editors do not make ad hominem remarks and comment only on opinions and content rather than disparaging other editors. You were previously advised to avoid personal attacks by here.

Unfortunately, you have continued to use insult and abuse in your talk page comments. As examples, these personal attacks are completely unacceptable:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotte_Motz&diff=prev&oldid=219360317
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotte_Motz&diff=prev&oldid=219571139
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viktor_Rydberg&diff=prev&oldid=219712985
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lotte_Motz&diff=prev&oldid=219849222

Because of this I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours.

If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

CIreland (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lotte Motz
Hello. I am trying to establish what the situation is with the article Lotte Motz and need some clarification of issues you have raised. I have protected the article from editing pending a resolution of the issues.

You have made a number of reversions, most recently this with an assertion that the reverted version plagiarized another text. Could you clarify:
 * Which text has been plagiarized?
 * Are you saying that the reverted version was a verbatim copy of another text?
 * Or are you saying that it has a substantially similar wording to another text?

I'd be grateful if you could respond as quickly as possible so that the issues can be resolved in a timely fashion.

Thanks.

CIreland (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, CIreland


 * The plagiarism is from the book, Mythological Women, which I cited as a reference when I first created this article. The material "Jack the Giant-Killer" has repeatedly inserted into the article, while also citing to the book via footnotes, tracks the relevant passage in Mythological Women point-for-point, and often word-for-word.  If you look at my edit of 22:14, 14 June 2008, I quoted the relevant passage in its entirety.  By comparing the quote (which "Jack" promptly deleted) to "Jack's" paraphrase, you will see the basis for my objection that his version is plagiarism. Rsradford (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

language
I am glad you have moderated your language at the page being discussed above. I have warned the other editor appropriately about his. Please remember to just talk about the article; it may help to not refer to each other by name. DGG (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa
Hello Radford. Thank you for contributing to the Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Irpa and article - I am always glad for constructive help. However, I have reverted your reference additions as they are not actually cited within the article, something I am certain of as I wrote nearly the entire article from scratch. Of course, we certainly can cite these authors in the theories sections if they've presented appropriate theories in the works you've listed. bloodofox: (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in this topic? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, Rsradford!

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

"Outstanding new article!"

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

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)