User talk:Rtc

3RR warning
On the creation-evolution article you are getting very close to WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 12:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I did not assert that your next revert would put you over merely that your pattern was getting you very close it. As for your other comments, I will respond to them when I have time. JoshuaZ 20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It might also be helpful if you explicitly brought up the matter of the merger and explained your position on the talk page. Even if there was consensus for the merger earlier it does not look like there is now. JoshuaZ 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also one more point- if the editors thought what you did was POV you may want to ask them on their talk pages and explain wht you did it. JoshuaZ 21:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you have opened a discussion of your intended pages on Talk:Creation-evolution controversy. Are you referring to your Sept. 13th and 14th edits to the section "German Poll"? Because they only seem to cover some of the material you inserted; they do not speak to all the material which was inserted and then reverted. How about we discuss this on that talk page in a new section called "Rtc's Proposed Changes"? Cheers, Kasreyn 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Rtc, my understanding of WP:3RR is that edits which constitute a partial revert - where part of the material is restored to its previous form - also count towards one's limit. Otherwise, 3RR would be utterly unenforceable, as revert-warriors would simply add new content with every revert and claim that, as it isn't an exact revert, it isn't a revert at all and doesn't count. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, Kasreyn, I do not see what "material [I am supposed to have] inserted" you are talking about. I did not insert any material, I slightly corrected incorrect changes and did a merger discussed long ago. Yes, I am refering to Sept. 13 and 14 edits to "German Poll". Did you read them? Did you read User talk:JoshuaZ? Why don't I get any follow-up on talk page of the arctile nor on the JoshuaZ talk page just mentioned? Why does nobody give quotations of what they reject about my change or give any comment about them at all? All I know is that "rv POV" and "you are wrong" and "you have been rejected by x editors" and unspecific claims that I have inserted "material". You can write English on my German user page, but you can also reply here. I don't mind. I am only checking english WP once a day, though. Your opinion about 3RR is wrong. If the changes are progressive towards a common goal (I took back bias claim), it is perfectly okay to go into a "quasi-"edit-war (I'd call it an cooperative edit session). --Rtc 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience article
Rtc, I apologize for getting so snappy earlier. You have a wealth of valuable points regarding Popper; thanks very much for that set of contributions. ... Kenosis 14:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize, too, for harsh language. --Rtc 14:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Rtc, I'm not sure I agree with all your points, but I do know that you know more about Popper than do I, so I'm staying out of that part. No point in looking egregiously stupid. ;) One note, beware Krishna -- he's the expert beyond all experts. One other point, if you could recommend just one book by Popper (or about Popper) what would it be?  Thanks.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Many people believe to know what's in the book, but once you read it, you will be surprised, I guarantee. (However, editing the Pseudoscience article, I sadly noticed that very important appendices *XIII–*XX and some prefaces seem to be exclusive so far to the German version. So if you can get your hands on 11th edition of the German version, I can really recommend it. The editor also added a detailed section about the development of the book.). The Logic is a very early book, if you want to see the improvements that have been made to Popper's critical rationalism in the meantime, also read David Miller: Critical rationalism. A re-statement and defence. PS: I'm surely not an expert, more the interested laymen. But on wikipedia, once you have read the book you are writing about, you almost count as an expert ;) Unfortunately wikipedians google too much and there is a bias to web sources, which are often of bad quality... --Rtc 10:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get the Popper book (English first...my German is fine as far as reasonably non-complex conversations or contributions to Wiki, but technical stuff takes a good bit more effort), then I can look into Miller.  You have a good point about Wiki being google-happy -- but I suppose that's just easier for so many these days.  However, it's also less productive as many people have great difficulty filtering out or even noticing the bias.  Of course, a lot of it has to do with the nuances of English, but I know that in the US, nuances are missed left and right, thus leading to miscomprehension (of course, that's often the writer's goal).  Again, many thanks.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OpenVZ marked as essay
You have recently marked OpenVZ article with Template:Essay-entry, but haven't provided any explanation why you think so. To my mind, article is very technical, specific and to the point. So could you please elaborate and tell something about your decision (preferrably on the Talk:OpenVZ page)? --K001 11:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Science
Thanks for getting the lead of the article on Science back to a more reasonable expression of the concept, RTC. You're right; it is definitely not "and/or...". ... Kenosis 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Careful, lad. You're vvery close to 3RR over on Irreducible Complexity. Adam Cuerden talk 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm from German Wikipedia. We do not have 3RR here, for good reason. You should abandon it, too. PS: there's also WP:NPOV. It's more important to enforce that policy... --Rtc 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You've gone over the 3RR. This is the English Wikipedia and it does have the 3RR rule even if the German one doesn't.-Psychohistorian 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't search an excuse for adding POV. Adding POV is forbidden even if you can allegedly trick the opponent into 3RR. Don'T game the system, or you may be blocked. --Rtc 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been reported for violating the 3RR.-Psychohistorian 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to reread the 3RR policy - particularly the part which states, "Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."-Psychohistorian 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I did not undo work. I added the source in a different way: . Unfortunately my compromise was ignored completely. Why didn't you AGF and discuss on the talk page, but immediately worked towards getting me blocked? Why was my message on the talk page removed, suggesting I wasn't using discussion? --Rtc 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The block reason is false. I did not violate 3RR, which speaks of "a 24-hour period". Further, the reverts were done to "remove [...] controversial material about living persons" (and it was poorly sourced, too, although I don't mind about that, since it is correct. But it is something that is neither relevant nor right to include). The 3rr violation was also not a "repeated" one. Finally, User:Alkivar took a clear position on the content issue and it must hence be assumed that he blocked me because he disliked my position on it and wanted to censor me, not because of any 3RR violation. My most recent edit before he blocked me wasn't in the article, but in, where I was ready to discuss the issue. He didn't even give me a chance to do so and to reply to his opinion. Even if the reason would have been correct, the indefinite block wouldn't be appropriate.


 * I'll leave a note on AN/I under that heading to direct other users to this unblock request. -  auburn pilot  talk  20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that you "believe the block was valid", but this is not a question of beliefs, but a question of facts. And the block is in fact not valid; I have given strong arguments about that above. Why are they ignored? It is the same as every time, the 3rr block is done purely as an excuse to get me censored, and upheld while being factually incorrect, and it is a dishonest replacement for the actual reason behind the intention to block, which however isn't a valid reason for blocking. --rtc 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. rtc is however advised that 3RR does attract a 24 hour block, and per WP:BLOCK, second and further offences, were they to occur, could attract longer penalties. Orderinchaos 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

17 easy steps // and thanks
Haw haw.. I haven't read that in a long time. Thanks for your contribs to Hacker, stick around... Es gibt wirklich kein 3RR auf die Deutsche Wikipedia!?.. Wie kommt edit wars zur Ende? -- Sehen wir uns.. ∴ here…&spades; 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The editwars usually come to an end by protecting the article instead of blocking the participants of the edit war. --rtc 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation related to Hacking related articles
Rtc, there have been a series of worrisome actions undertaken on your part, such as the move and renaming of several articles without a proper discussion with all affected parties across those articles, and frankly this has begun to look like a revisionist campaign to me. For instance, there was never an academia and hobbyist(!) section to the hacker article because there isn't a gross divide within the hacking community and the academic concept was already well covered in the former Hacker culture article. Also, as a matter of fact, the computer security aspect to hacking is a relatively new attribute applied to those within the overall hacker community.

Unfortunately, these changes have led to a great deal of misinformation caused by your well-intentioned but premature edits.

Foremost are the edits leading to the propagation of the divided hacking community of hobbyist, academia, and computer security, a point I tried to clarify in my previous edit (Talk:Hacker).


 * 1) You moved the Hacker culture article to the erroneous Hacker (academia) which you should not have done as the single Hacker article should, as well as having a detailed history, cover the ambiguities. But even more importantly, the objective of the latter was to detail the hacking community as a worldwide subculture similar to all others subculture. This was completely lost by your edits. The hacker community developed over decades of like-minded enthusiasts the world over coming together. I cannot fathom why the hacker culture was moved to hacker (academia), granted, the root, but an irrelevant aspect of the community now. Something of this magnitude should have been done with a long and extended discussion.
 * 2) You moved the Hardware hacker article to Hacker (hobbyist) and this is the one that is really troublesome. Like I said, hacking is not a  hobby , it is a full-blown subculture. That is why the networked hacker culture is referred to as the "hacking community" (see Google results: 13,000,000). Playing chess is a hobby. Hacking is not chess. This aspect was greatly lost also by your massive changes to the former hacker culture article. And second to this, the hardware hacker field of hacking is a specialized field similar to phreaking. All phreakers and hardware hackers are hackers, but all hackers are not phreakers and hardware modifier.
 * 3) You moved the important Timeline of hacker history to the erroneous title of Timeline of computer security hacker history and continued to change to reflect the new title. As I said before, the broader computer security aspect is a relatively new attribute applied to the hacker community, as it developed counter to hackers based upon the perceived image of hackers.

Perhaps if you were to research on the history of hacking and spend an extended time within a hacker network, you would understand why these issues arise.

Note also that the main reason no action was undertaken to revert the errors was to prevent an edit-war. But something of this magnitude might require a Request for Comment. -- User: (talk • contribs • count) 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Kerowen, but this criticism amounts to nothing. Nowhere a claim is made about a "divided hacking community". There are simply several hacker cultures, with different roots and different understanding of the term, computer security hacker culture seeing one big hacker community, academic hacker culture (at least prominent adherents from it, such as ESR) disassociating itself from this idea. What I have done is to give the correct account according to the Jargon File and other sources, which I have all provided. From you, I do not see a single source, only that I should do "research on the history of hacking and spend an extended time within a hacker network". But there is no Original Research to be done on Wikipedia. The Point of view you are refering to is well accounted for in the Hacker article, just as WP:NPOV demands: "The computer security hacking subculture on the other hand tends not to distinguish between the two subcultures as harshly". So what are you complaining about? I did these things according to being bold, to put an end to the endless, amateurish nonsense that has accumulated around these articles. The feedback was positive at Talk:Hacker. Perhaps you should consider that the presentation carries some truth and check whether your own impression of the hacker stuff has to be revised. At least you should argue with sources instead of your own doubtlessly extended personal experiences within the "hacker network", which isn't a valid source for Wikipedia. However, I agree that the article Hacker (hobbyist), as it is now, is bad at least, even misleading. The main point, the MITS Altair, is completely missing. But that can be improved. I think you are too much understanding the three subcultures as being demarcated according to their activities (that is, hacking as a hobby, hacking as an academic pofession and hacking as a job in computer security industry). That is not so; it is a misunderstanding. They are demarcated according to their historical origin and development, their context. To give an extreme example, just as Nudism and Indigenous peoples both have something to do with nakedness, they are certainly different historical contexts. So it is wrong that "the hacking community [is] a [single] worldwide subculture"; neither is the academic hacker culture "the root" of a large subculture that is centered around computer security—phreaking and 2600 is that root, and it has nothing to do with the academic hacker culture—, nor is the academic hacker culture "an irrelevant aspect of the community now"—it is a subculture completely in its own right, it's just called free software and open source movement nowadays. Further, it is wrong that the "three [hacker subcultures described in Hacker] are not different, they are the same". They are objectively different, and that difference is their historical origin, development and context, that is, phreaking, 2600 and BBSs for the computer security hacker subculture, MIT-AI and other university computers for the academic hacker culture and MITS Altair for the hobbyist hacker culture. (And, despite this being the actual demarcation, yet, in practice, there ARE large differences also in their activities, although these differences are less sharp—hardware hacking is found in all three subcultures, but in their respective different context, guided by different objectives and motivations. But breaking into systems, be it ethical or not, be it one's own system or someone else's, is emphatically NOT something the academic hacker community is about or has ever been about.) I made some clarifying edits, hoping that the misunderstanding of the demarcation as one based on activity is prevented better now. Given the utterly chaotic state before I did my changes, I disagree that what I have done "should have been done with a long and extended discussion." Although I do not think that the distinction is wrong, I am ready at any time to change it, even completely, if you come up with convincing (that is, not some random usenet posting, for example) sources that are better (ie., more detailed, taking into account and explaining more facts etc.) than the current ones. Finally, go ahead if you wish to initiate a Request for Comment. I am always interested in feedback and hints about things I have done wrong (although I am confident that my changes give a correct account and represent the sources I have cited fairly). --rtc 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kero has now canvassed a number of users on this issue, despite not yet posting anything to Talk:Hacker. Lets please continue this discussion where it belongs.  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 02:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and the logical positivist approach to the very idea of pseudoscience ;-)
Rtc, when Popper refers to pseudoscience, he's not referring to pseudoempiricism, but to pseudoscience. (Also please remember that formal science such as mathematics, logic, and statistics also involve falsification, but it is not a-posteriori or emprical falsification.) Of course, if someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll be removing the reference to "reinforced dogmatisms" in due course, thought not today. The edit you made today to the article on pseudoscience, I must admit, seems to reflect Popper's intent AFAIK. Bye for now. ... Kenosis 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I wrote anything about pseudoempiricism. On the other hand, since he never used the word pseudoempiricism, I agree that he is not referring to it when he talks of pseudoscience. But Popper is not referring to falsifiability, either! He is refering to those unfalsifiable theories that are reinforced dogmatisms. This is only a small subset of them. I think my change explains that quite well. I don't think hat the reference to reinforced dogmatisms should be removed, since Popper's reinforced dogmatisms are exactly what makes something a pseudoscience to him. --rtc 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I must wonder what your edit summary here intended to mean by the words "you will see that...". Many particpants have been involved in constructing the article on pseudoscience. Take care. ... Kenosis 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have written the previous version of this part of the article myself, and now corrected it. At the time I wrote it, I had read only the Logic, and I had overlooked some remarks by Popper in the appendix that what he had seen first as a distinction between science and non-science was in fact one between empirical and non-empirical theories. --rtc 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read some of what you have posted here and I find it logical and well thought out and I see you got for your efforts the 'troll' tag. Nothing new. Anyone who goes against the status quo gets that here. Octoplus 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now noticed they are calling you and tenditious editor. From history you have 2 choices: shut up or be banned. Look throught the archives and see how many people have been banned for critcizing the article. Octoplus 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Just to warn you, you're getting pretty close to violating the three-revert rule on Pseudoscience. Please hold off on your reversions and discuss this issue on the talk page. Also note that even if you try to continually slip under the limit but keep reverting, this could be considered gaming the system, and is also against the rules. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must warn you not to argue with 3RR warning. I have constantly added sources and references when asked, and was reverted. No comment was given on the talk page, although I have continued to give more and more sources, cited directly, and available on the web. The version I corrected was written by myself. I tried to speak to the reverting user on his talk page, which he deliberately ignored and continued to revert. It is a common practice in controversial articles to try somehow to get people criticizing the article into doing something such that they can be banned according to 3RR. This is gaming the system and bad faith. --rtc 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I count your edits, you're currently at exactly three in the last 24 hours - this is why I said "close to violating [it]." I'm just giving you a warning in the hope that it will prevent you from making a fourth. Also, please note that the policy doesn't care whether you're editing in good faith, whether you keep adding more sources to make your version better, or whether you tried to resolve it through other means. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but none fit here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The other user is reverting allegedly because he wants sources. So I added the sources. Because I am doing that, he reverts me again, and demands more sources. Isn't that somehow a little bit absurd? I have two options: Either not question the article, or try it, be reverted and blocked. If you are giving me a warning in the hope that it will prevent me from making a fourth revert, why are you not doing the same favour to the other user? --rtc 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The other user is an administrator (who would thus presumably know the policy quite well) with no blocks on record. You, on the other hand, have two blocks on record for 3RR violations (though I'll note that one was undone not long after imposed). You're quite frankly a much greater risk of violating the rule. Also, on the subject matter, you might want to read FeloniousMonk's edit summaries; they give his rationale for reverting. If you already have and disagree with it, you can bring it up on his talk page or the talk page of the article. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I have written to the user on his talk page, User_talk:FeloniousMonk The user ignored this and kept reverting. He seems not to be interested in discussion. --rtc 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't give you the right to violate WP:3RR (which you haven't yet, I'll note, but you shouldn't edit-war over it anyway). And if I may speak for him, I think he intended to give a response through his edit summaries (though I can't be sure). Of course, he isn't the only arbiter. Feel free to bring up your case on the article talk page, and if you can get other people to support your version, they can revert back to it for you. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus first is not needed for editing wikipedia, and I tried hard to discuss on the talk page, but there was no reply for some time, and now there are two replies, but still no argument. I provided sources and yet today added another source that is very clear. Either give a real argument, or stop reverting, you have no right to revert my edits simply for such claims as consensus allegedly being generally against me. That is mobbing. Stop that and start discussion if you have anything to say. Claiming such things is especially ridiculous since I have written the part of the text which I am correcting myself. --rtc 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're correct that WP:BOLD is an important part of editing Wikipedia; however what we have here amounts edit warring. The first time you inserted your interpretations, you were covered perfectly by WP:BOLD. The second time, not so much. Now, it's gotten completely irrelevent. Once it gets to this point, the best thing to do is step away from revert warring on the article and hammer it out on the talk page (preferably leaving it at the original version in the interim). I know you've tried to do this, but as I've explained, your lack of response is likely more a case of people not bothering to do all the work to respond than it is a case of people not objecting.
 * One other point that's important here: Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source. The facts in articles should, when possible, be based on reliable secondary sources. Popper's original writing counts as a primary source. What we want is some other reliable source who has review what he's said and drawn interpretations from it, and then we report those interpretations. Interpreting ourselves amounts to original research. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article currently cites primary sources, not secondary ones, and in fact secondary sources are very rare in general on Wikipedia. I am trying to correct what is claimed about what these primary sources allegedly say. There's really not much interpretation to be done about sources by Popper. I referred people to reputable secondary sources about Popper, such as Hacohen, Maggee, Bartley, Keuth, Niemann and Corvi. Noone seems to use them. --rtc 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours
For general troublemaking on the ID article, I've blocked you for 24 hours. And if you do not reform your behavior after this block expires, you can expect further blocks. Raul654 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 'general troublemaking'? I told you you cannot disagree with the status quo here. And now you are a conspiracy-finding paranoic. Octoplus 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that's helpful. Orangemarlin 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And quite profound as well.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you two please stop the trolling? Thank you. Octoplus 10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Go back under the bridge. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the Lake Trout are biting, so I think I'll have to continue. Orangemarlin 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you two stop wasting space here with silly comments? Thank You. Octoplus 11:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as soon as you stop filling the talk pages with silly comments. Oops, I guess you were blocked and banned already. My bad.--Filll 15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to be too sarcastic now. Creepzerg3 21:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rtc, you do not have long here
Once you are accused of being Raspor that is the signal you will be banned. Put in your email address so I can contact you.

I have determine that you are not in fact Raspor, despite the great similarities in style of editing. I apologize for the accusation, and I have asked that it be withdrawn. Orangemarlin 09:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Verisimilitude (literature)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Verisimilitude (literature), and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been moved from the verisimilitude wikipedia article, from which it was taken on given page, stupid bot. --rtc 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is unfalsifiable
The section starts with a blatant lie ("Falsifiability was proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience") and goes on distorting the facts. It implicitly attributes to Popper a criterion philosophy, a philosophy trying to find criteria for goodness of something or good reasons for something. Popper himself actually rejected this view and falsifiability does not have the purpose which the section implicitly presupposes. Popper not only was not a philosopher of science, he harshly criticized the whole idea of such a philosophy, as you can for example read in his essay "On the non-existence of scientific method". Passages such as "In response to this criticism of evolution, numerous examples of potential ways to falsify evolution have been proposed. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"[39] (more recently, Richard Dawkins has made a similar observation)." display the incompetence of the writer: It was actually Popper himself who mentioned and discussed such arguments years before any of the cited sources. Popper has written more than a book about evolution, a fact which the section manages surprisingly well to not even mention once. It also fails to say why Popper opposed evolution in its naturalistic interpretation in the first place, and it fruther fails to say that he never changed his mind about that, and it also fails to say that Popper was from the very beginning a stark opponent of naturalism, scientific method, evidence-based science, support for theories, probability of theories and anything else put forward to give good reasons for or to justify belief in scientific theories. Or, to put it in Popper's own words: "The purpose of demarcation has been misunderstood completely." --rtc (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok very good. So who invented the notion of falsifiability then, if it was not Popper? And what examples of falsifiability did Popper present before Haldane? And do you have WP:RS for these points we can look at?--Filll (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Popper did invent falsifiability, but not for the purpose it it claimed to have here. Popper presented the example of a car in the Precambrian era, but noted that it would contradict only common descent, not the theory of evolution by natural selection (which Popper never opposed, however). I do not understand what makes a source reliable. All this is clearly written in Popper's works themselves, but people obviously never read them. Did you? If you want to know a source for any specific point, feel free to ask. --rtc (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. You started with the statement The section starts with a blatant lie ("Falsifiability was proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience". In what way is this a lie? All the papers and references I have read agree with this. I have not read his original works of course. I might have to eventually.--Filll (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a lie that Popper ever proposed falsifiability to distinguish science and pseudoscience. In fact, the word pseudoscience does not even occur once in The Logic of Scientific Discovery. It is not a coincidence that all your sources say something different about that. The distortion of Popper's views by the such-called mainstream interpretation of his views is well-known and well-documented and was criticized harshly and opposed to by Popper himself. Popper even noted that he thinks that most people writing about his work never actually read it. --rtc (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to evaluate many of your claims without links to peer-reviewed papers or reliable sources of university sites or book excerpts. You seem to rant on and on about how we have everything wrong, which might be correct. So what can you show us so we can check your claims?--Filll (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand exactly what you mean. If I point you to "Les chemins de la vérité. L'Express va plus loin avec Karl Popper", In: L'Express, (1598, 26th February) 1982, 82-88, for the car example, I suppose that does not fulfil your requirements. It is an interview with Popper in which he summarizes his views on evolution (I suppose you don't want to read the books in which he writes about the issue at length; Knowledge and the body-mind problem and Objective Knowledge). It is neither peer-reviewed nor a "reliable source" (whatever you mean by that). Poppers works themselves are also neither peer-reviewed nor "reliable" (as he himself would most certainly deny that they are, as he held that reliability does not exist), and many works and papers that are peer-reviewed and claim to be reliable contain this false information. Popper criticizes criterion philosophy literally under that name in the Addendum to The Open Society and Its Enemies. "On the non-existence of scientific method" is the preface to Popper's book Realism and the Aim of Science, and his stark opposition to the claim that something like scientific evidence or scientific data exists can be found, most strongly, in Karl R. Popper, David W. Miller: A proof of the impossibility of inductive probability. Nature 302 (1983), 687–688 (which is also just a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed paper) BTW, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, the work that introduced falsifiability, in fact was a criticism of positivism, which is the general view held by the people that are nowadays so hostile towards pseudoscience. Of course there is also some truth in the claim that falsifiability and pseudoscience are related; Popper's initial problem long before publishing anything about it was to distinguish science and pseudoscience (as you can read in his autobiography in P.A.Schilpp (Ed.): The Philosophy of Karl Popper), and the chapter "Science: Conjectures and refutations" of Popper's Conjectures and Refutations makes some very ambiguous statements about that. ---rtc (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are giving me good examples of why all philosphy is nonsense and why all scientists ignore the horse manure produced by philosophers.--Filll (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Popperians could not agree more. In fact, W.W.Bartley, a student of Popper, once wrote: "Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over has wasted or is wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology." --rtc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I only care about Popper since falsifiability and related areas has been used as a weapon by creationists against evolution. It has also become part of US law and judicial practice.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, creationists are notorious to take things out of context. Nobody who has ever read Popper's writings on evolution could say that he ever seriously opposed it. Concerning the court thing, I just recently read an article (I don't remember which one anymore) by a Popperian who stronlgy criticized such use of falsifiability. From a popperian perspective, prescribed curricula themselves are the root of all evil, not the question of criteria for things to teach in a prescribed curriculum. Without prescribed curricula, the whole problem disappears. Note: Non-prescribed curricula does not mean that parents choose what their children will be taught (such as homeschooling), but it means the children themselves choose what they want to be taught, and it also means that the state enforces the autonomy of the children's choice against any attempts to impose the choice on the children, including by parents, religion, scientific mainstream, or anything like that. That does not mean laissez faire education and it is too complex and nuanced to outline it fully here, but it is certainly quite radical. --rtc (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing you might not be in the United States. If you are, I apologize, but assuming you are not, let me try to explain what is going on here, which is not always apparent from outside. The repeated lawsuits here are because a certain body representing the religious views of perhaps 10% or less of the US population is pushing to have science classes in secular schools supported by public tax money promote their religious views. Not only do they want to make this possible, but they want this to be required, and they are pushing for the capability to put teachers who disagree with this in jail. That is what the battle is about; to have the power to put teachers who disagree with promoting a tiny religious view in a science class in jail. Note that it is legal in the US to promote this view: The ONLY situation in which there are problems is (1)when the teacher disagrees, and (2) in public secular schools paid for with public money, and (3) in science classes. Otherwise, this narrow religious view can be promoted, with no legal problems. So this fighting is sort of insane, in the United States. And the creationists describe it as free speech and all kinds of other dishonest ways. What it really is about is forcing nonbelievers to promote this religion with other people's money in science classes, or go to jail. --Filll (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * in home schools
 * in religious schools
 * in private schools
 * in public schools in nonscience classes
 * in public schools in science classes if the teacher and the teacher's employer agrees (that is, it is voluntary)
 * Yes, you are right that I have only a vague idea about the US school system. I am happy that these are non-issues where I live. It is my impression that what you write is missing form Creation and evolution in public education, at least in this clarity. I wish you happy holidays. --rtc (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not write that article. Maybe I should think about contributing there, if I can dredge up some references.--Filll (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 02:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Karl Popper Edits
Hi,

I'm interested in editing a few aspects of the Karl Popper page. I am working with an 80 year old man who was a contemporary of his and a "friend." My 80 year old friend would like to see the intro paragraph made more coherent for a lay person. Comments?

Thanks, Pete --Petebertine (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, just go ahead! Don't be afraid to rewrite the intro paragraph, or even the whole article, if you wish. If you have any specific questions or need help, just post to Talk:Karl Popper. Greetings to your friend. What does he think about Wikipedia? --rtc (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My old friend Ben
My old friend sees everything wrong in the world and would like to see the entire Popper page written by someone whom as he says, "Speaks English as a first or second language." This is his criticism for much of what he has seen on Wikipedia, "It's written by people who are so impressed with themselves that they can't get their inflated heads outside to see what the real world is about." Funny old coot is Ben. He has done some incredible things in his life and has actually saved several species from extinction. As for Popper, Ben worked with the English Parliament in the 50s and 60s helping to form what was then very left wing stuff that is now distinctly right wing and that's about all I understand about English governing systems.

What is really pissing him off is the meme page. He looked at the meme page and laughed. Together we identified about 3 Co$ people and several attempts to try to prove that Dawkins believes in god. One day not long ago I spent 4 hours trying to slash out all the dead flesh on the meme page. I had done a decent job and then a bot came along and accused me of being a vandal and erased everything I had done. I giggled and realized that probably some kind of Artificial Intelligence had been injected into Wikipedia by the guys at Google. But I am still hopeful that grey matter will beat out silicone and in the end the machines will keep working for us.

Keep up the good fight and thanks for the words of encouragement.

By the way, do you have any idea what "Wikipedia Editors" are getting paid to promote corporate agendas? 100s of thousands. In fact Vice Magazine asked me to try to get them off the black list and offered big bucks to do it. I said hold the cash and just let me see what is wrong. Wow! They screwed up... there needs to be wikipedia outreach programs for wikipedia abuse. Soon there will be specialized Wikipedia consultants. I suggest that you guys prepare guidelines before it becomes overwhelming.

Wish I had more time to work the pedia. Till I can make a living off doing it I will only declare myself king of the meme page.

--Petebertine (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hacker discussion
It's more than a week after the fact, so I apologize for digging up what may be old dirt, but I've just had this pointed out to me by someone who seems pretty upset by it. Comments like "Your country, and other English speaking countries, or other countries in general are insignificant, unimportant and irrelevant..." seem a bit personal, and may flare up very defensive, nationalistic sentiment in other users who feel singled out, or could otherwise prevent calm, reasonable discussion. Other editors may quite understandably be offended by such a sentiment, so I'd personally appreciate it if you could try to self-moderate such statements in the future. Granted the diff I'm linking is a week old, but I'd rather head off potential problems as soon as possible. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Luna, please don't let you fool by this troll. When I made that statement I preceded it with "I answer to [Andrew's] questions by using [his] style of thinking:" and it was followed by "As already said, this would be the answer using [Andrew's] style of thinking. Not the style of thinking that I prefer." When Andrew quoted the text in, he took the statements out of context by completely omitting that cruical clarification. --rtc (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. That does alter the context significantly, but I could still a reasonable person taking offense to that, either because of the raw statement directly -- context or not -- or because such a sentiment was attributed to themself, effectively putting the words right in their mouth. It's tempting to make points in that sort of fashion, but especially online, posts like that almost beg to be taken out of context and waved around like flags. I don't believe that was your intention, though; I poked around a bit and didn't notice any history of your making such comments; this was more of a "be careful" note, for future reference. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Staying cool while the editing gets hot
Hey. I just wanted to recommend WP:COOL as a good read. I think it's pretty clear that Andrew8127498278917 is trolling, and I think that will be clear to any admin that reviews the situation. Even so, it's probably good if we are all infailingly civil, in both what we write and in edit summaries, even when provoked.

Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, I thought your edit and edit summary were funny.  Enigma  msg! 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Filed in the "Hacker" article
In accordance with clause (4) of the Arbitration Filing Procedure, you are hereby being notified that you have been mentioned as a contributing party to the article and you can make a statement.

You can find the claim, and make your statement here.

I am required to tell you this information I am the filing party for the arbitration claim.

Andrew81446 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Falsifiability of "conspiracy theories"
I've noticed at talk:falsifiability that you are one of the editors there who have actually read Popper ;) I'm currently trying to deal with the references to Popper in the article conspiracy theory and I was wondering whether you might be able to help me with a few things. I am trying to get my facts and ideas straight before I actually say anything at the article talk page, which can be quite a hornets' nest sometimes. I hope I am not trying to impose on you too much :)

I have already deleted one piece of what appears to be pure "original research".

This leaves two more references, the first being another claim about falsifiability in Conspiracy theory. Putting aside the crude generalisation about the thinking of "conspiracy theorists" which is at the core of Allison's argument, would what Allison calls "rationalistic" thinking in fact make a theory unfalsifiable? Or to put it another way, is Allison's argument an obvious over-creative interpretation of Popper's (or any other respected philosopher's) thought, or might it actually have some merit and be worthy of further investigation (such as ordering the book through my public library)?

The third reference is to Popper's conspiracy theory of society. This is obviously a different kettle of fish in that it genuinely does deserve a place in the article. Nevertheless I find it striking that Popper's main reason for asserting the falsity of "conspiracy theories" is that "conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy". Popper appears to offer no evidence to support this assertion. Is this simply a sloppy argument on Popper's part, or have I missed something? Popper also appears to make the same kind of crude generalisation as Allison by effectively saying that all those who believe that there are powerful groups secretly plotting big conspiracies also believe that those groups are responsible for all the evils of the world. Has anyone written anything that might shed light on this apparent error?

Many thanks! ireneshusband (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Popper does not assert "the falsity of 'conspiracy theories'". Popper asserts the falsity of the conspiracy theory. This is a distinct technical term in his book: "In order to make my point clear, I shall briefly describe a theory which is widely held but which assumes what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the ‘conspiracy theory of society’. It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about." (chapter 14, Open Society) Popper does not say that "conspirators rarely consummate their conspiracy" because there is "evidence" for that, his claim is much stronger. He says that it is logically impossible for conspirators to consummate their conspiracy flawlessly, because conspirators are lacking omniscience just the same way as anyone else and are facing unintended consequences of their actions the same way as anyone else: "One of the most primitive economic actions may serve as an example in order to make the idea of unintended consequences of our actions quite clear. If a man wishes urgently to buy a house, we can safely assume that he does not wish to raise the market price of houses. But the very fact that he appears on the market as a buyer will tend to raise market prices. And analogous remarks hold for the seller. Or to take an example from a very different field, if a man decides to insure his life, he is unlikely to have the intention of encouraging some people to invest their money in insurance shares. But he will do so nevertheless. We see here clearly that not all consequences of our actions are intended consequences; and accordingly, that the conspiracy theory of society cannot be true because it amounts to the assertion that all results, even those which at first sight do not seem to be intended by anybody, are the intended results of the actions of people who are interested in these results." Popper is not "saying that all those who believe that there are powerful groups secretly plotting big conspiracies also believe that those groups are responsible for all the evils of the world", he criticizes those who say that "groups [secretly plotting big conspiracies could at least in theory be] responsible for all the evils of the world" Popper even gives examples of conspiracies in politics that succeeded (in a different source which I don't know exactly where to find anymore, I think it was one of the footnotes of one of the writings in Popper Selections), but his basic views seems to be that if a conspiracy succeeds to reach its goal, then it can only be a small one, as in his opinion big goals cannot be reached with one big blow, regardless of wether it is done openly or secretly (and because of the lack of independent review and criticism perhaps even less successfully in the second case). --rtc (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied inline, ok? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deprecating GFDL 1.2-only on en.wiki
Thought you might be interested in this discussion going on about deprecating the use of GFDL 1.2-only licensing tags on en.wiki. Cheers. Kaldari ( talk ) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hacker category
Hello. I see that you made an attempt to rename a category on Hacker (programming subculture). If renaming the category is what you wish to do, the way to do that is to go to the Category page, move the page itself, and then update the pages within it as necessary. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no move button on the category page? The desired target is Category:Hacking (programmer subculture), which I already created. --rtc (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems you are correct. When I saw the page, that category was listed as a redlink. I probably just needed to purge my cache or something. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Herbert Schildt
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Herbert Schildt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Herbert Schildt. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hacker Computer Security
Hey, I reverted your edits again, The categories are accurate as the article covers information regarding the programmer and hobbyist subcultures. Especially the programmer culture. Groups such as Hak5 prove that all three can coexist. As for the book, I have not read it, but the original poster has made a reference to it, and we cant really judge the content. This falls into the WP:TRUTH area of wikipedia. The section is referenced with a book citation, and is therefore suitable for inclusion. We should discuss the issue here before another revert, to avoid violating 3RR. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Sephiroth. The article, by its very name, excludes programmer and hobbyist subcultures, which have different articles. The whole point of the existence of these different articles is to keep different things separate from each other. Even if some references are made in this article to the other subcultures, that is not a reason for adding these incorrect categories. The same way as we don't put Barrack Obama into the category "Former Conservative President" despite the fact that many references are made to the former conservative president, George W. Bush. If you have not read the book and don't know the background it is even more puzzling why you start reverting. These points are all too obvious for anyone with only a little bit of knowledge on the subject. What you essentially say is "Well, I do not have a clue about the things I revert, but I do it anyway" The book, contrary to what is implied by quoting it like that in this article, does not talk about computer security ethic. In sharp contrast, the author has criticized computer security hackers as unethical according to this ethic. And why can't WE (meaning neither me, nor you, I suppose) judge the book merely because YOU have not read it? --rtc (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AFS links
Hi, thanks for adding the links to old HTML drafts. However, I have never heard of AFS hyperlinks, and cannot find any information on them on internet. Could you tell me what the AFS protocol is? I have found information about the Andrew File System and the AtheOS File System, but I do not see them using hyperlink protocols. Possibly it's an old protocol from before the HTML time. Maybe you can tell me where you found these AFS links to the old HTML drafts? — Peter (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of Science version of Science article
Hi, there are some doubts about your recent edits on the above mentioned article. Discussion has started here. Could you come and help others try to understand the aims and sources and where your edits are headed? Maybe others can help also to get this section better in ways which also match your ideas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Regarding - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 13:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did that long before you sent me this message. Please see the discussion page of that article, where discussion is going on. --rtc (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from the article cited: "There had been no meltdown in reactor No 3, government spokesman Yukio Edano said. Earlier he had said that a 'partial meltdown' could not be ruled out." which clearly says "no meltdown". Serazahr (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! And that was what the text citing the source said. You changed it into the opposite, claiming he disclaimed that there was no meltdown, that is, claiming he said there was a meltdown. --rtc (talk)
 * My bad sorry didn't see the dis- part Serazahr (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Fukushima I nuclear accidents
Please use JST not UTC, also, a news ticker is not a suitably reliable source. Thanks --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ARD (broadcaster) is "the world's largest public broadcaster". Their newsticker is reliable and has been reliable ever since the disaster started, often having news earlier than all other sources. The TECPO statement will turn up on other newstickers as well in some minutes. I am sorry about not using JST, I always give the time from the source. Feel free to change it. --rtc (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See the talk page message in the article about the reliability of news blogs. It is best to wait until you can find an article, they are normally updated a few minutes after the ticker. We have to do this anyway as in a month's time the news ticker reference will not work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FukushimaI rad long term prequake.PNG
Why did you change the licensing info on File:FukushimaI rad long term prequake.PNG? Why is it ineligible for copyright? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ineligible very obviously because there is no originality involved. --rtc (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

reverse barnstar


Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

End of validity of US patent on IDEA
In International_Data_Encryption_Algorithm Rtc/you wrote, circa December 2010 about U.S. Patent 5,214,703, issued May 25, 1993, in justification to a patent expiry on January 7, 2012:

"Note that the PGP FAQ still claims the expiry date of the US patent to be May 25, 2010. However, US patent law was changed in 1995 such that patents now expire 20 years after filing, not 17 years after issuing. This holds retroactively for all patents that had not yet expired at the time the changed law came into effect, and it thus holds for IDEA."

Agreed, the stated change in patent law did occur and does applies retroactively to U.S. 5,214,703. But IMHO the patent still expires 17 years from issue date, that is after May 25, 2010 as claimed in the PGP FAQ.

The key point is that the protection under the new law, as defined by 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2), lasts "20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.". The patent claims priority w.r.t. a Swiss patent filed May 18, 1990, and that is the start of the 20 years period, which thus ends May 18, 2010, that is slightly before the end of the 17 year period which ends May 25, 2010. The protection afforded to the licensee by the old law is NOT removed retroactively, and thus protection ends May 25, 2010.

I located the Swiss patent by checking under foreign priority in the status of the US patent 5214703 at 

I am open to contradiction, and more than willing to examine any reference to the January 7, 2012 date (which was introduced on that page on May 19, 2009, without reference).

Fgrieu (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Follop-up on this at Talk:International Data Encryption Algorithm Fgrieu (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits to Karl Popper
I'd been wanting to get round to having a good look at and edit of the Karl Popper page so thank you for saving me the time. Absolutely first rate edits. Reichsfürst (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitchhiker
Continuously inserting uncited material into an article may be construed as vandalism. Please stop. Student7 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. When you recently edited Gemeinsamer Ausschuss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bundesrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks
This on ANI: "he's doing it deliberately, not merely accidentally out of enthusiasm or something." was - in context of what you've already been saying, and my warning in general (and specifically to you) a personal attack. Please review WP:NPA. Ongoing personal attacks are not OK on Wikipedia. Please stop this now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it certainly wasn't a personal attack. It was stating the user's own agenda, as proclaimed by himself on his user page. --rtc (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let others judge what his agenda is. You ARE over the line into making personal attacks on him.  I have warned you about that.  If you continue making personal attacks I or another administrator can block you for WP:NPA policy violations.
 * It would be best if you stepped back and stopped engaging on the topic entirely. A whole lotta people know about it now, nothing he's doing is escaping scrutiny, and your agenda is clouding your own judgement and behavior.  I can't order you to, but it's probably in your best interest if you find something else to do for a while.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attack whatsoever in what I said. See WP:WIAPA for what a personal attack is. See WP:AVOIDYOU for what a personal attack is not, especially: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. ... WP:ANI, ...)." You are right, however, that I am beating a dead horse. I already said so. And you are beating a dead horse, too, by right now continuing this fruitless discussion here. --rtc (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Georgewilliamherbert, if you (or anyone else) block over those comments it will be a long time before you hear the end of it. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify something, which Georgewilliamherbert perhaps misunderstood: I am not saying the user is neccessarily a nazi. He might be doing it deliberately for other reasons, but he is doing it deliberately, even purposefully (see the statement on his user page), not accidentally. That's the point I wanted to stress, nothing else. --rtc (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply
I don't have time to work on it, but I'd suggest you peruse the list of secondary sources already available as cited works in the various article pages you've come across already. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits
You are at 3/4 reverts. Probably best to get consensus before reverting again. Per WP:MEDRS we should be using stuff from the last 3-5 years if possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Violating 3RR at Circumcision
Hi Rtc,

You've got over 3000 edits and you've been around a while, and I can see from your User Talk page here that you've been notified about the 3RR before, so there's no reason for me to template you, but you are clearly over the 3RR at Circumcision: This is your "official warning", please stop edit-warring. It's clear from discussion at the article that a convincing case hasn't been made for your position, please provide a more convincing argument at the article Talk page, or please stop edit-warring against consensus. I'll look for your response at the article Talk page. Thanks.... 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 05:40, 28 August 2012
 * 2) 23:24, 28 August 2012
 * 3) 23:33, 28 August 2012
 * 4) 23:52, 28 August 2012
 * 5) 02:41, 29 August 2012
 * 6) 06:20, 29 August 2012
 * Clearly I have made a convincing case. My case has merely been ignored... --rtc (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a funny thing to say you have made a convincing case when three of your fellow experienced editors haven't been convinced by it. It fails WP:AGF to assume your fellow editors are wilfully ignoring a convincing argument.  Let's keep this discussion at the article Talk page.    13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bayesian inference, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Falsification and David Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bayesian Epistemology
I still don't think that the Bayesian epistemology is on topic. The lead correctly identifies Bayesian methods as a rational way to UPDATE beliefs. That doesn't imply that it tells you anything about whether a given belief is rational or not, which is the subject of epistemology. E.g. if you have an irrational prior then rational updates to your degree of belief in your irrational prior does not give you a rational justification for your belief in the end. The first part, the rational updates of belief, is the topic of this article on Bayesian inference, while the last part, rational justification of beliefs, is the topic Bayesian epistemology.

Hopefully you agree that putting the epistemology comments in the section on applications is a good compromise. The use of Bayesian techniques in epistemology is an application of Bayesian inference, and an application that is subject to some valid criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleSpam (talk • contribs)
 * "E.g. if you have an irrational prior then rational updates to your degree of belief in your irrational prior does not give you a rational justification for your belief in the end" But that is exactly the point of bayesian inference, that given rational updates, all beliefs will converge to the same probability, so, eventually, given enough evidence, everyone with have the same probabilities for all beliefs. Miller's book notes, however, that there are very many version of Bayesianism and it is sometimes hard to say what they amount to. I agree with your solution, though. --rtc (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isoelastic utility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HARA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annette Schavan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marc Maiffret


The article Marc Maiffret has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * May not meet notability standards.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 00:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Relevance" issue in Microsoft Excel
Hello, Rtc.

It appears I did not explain the relevance issue properly in my last edit summary. Very sorry. (Though, I thought you perhaps knew, given that you aren't exactly new here.) So, here it is:

"Relevance", as I said in my edit summary, concerns "content relevance" as established by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT. According to WP:NOTADVERT, contents contribute in one article should not advertise or seem to advertise another subject, especially another product. (I might add that articles are not even allowed to advertise their subject.) That said, the only way to mention gnumeric in Microsoft Excel is the following:
 * 1) If there are reliable secondary sources that compare Excel with gnumeric and if this comparison has due weight, then you may include a line or two about this similarity in the article by citing the sources. Even then, you should stick to MOS:LAYOUT: Novel info should not be added to the article lead.
 * 2) If the above conditions do not meet (even if you have personally observed that gnumeric's similarity with Excel is significant and worthy of comment) the only way to attach gnumeric to Microsoft Excel in a neutral manner is to put a link to it in Comparison of spreadsheet software article.

By the way, "well known" is a weasel word and is not allowed, per WP:WEASEL.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By not mentioning that this alternative exists, the Excel article is in violation of WP:NOTADVERT. It is obvious the article is trying hard to hide the fact that alternatives exist, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. I strongly disagree that "the only way to attach gnumeric to Microsoft Excel in a neutral manner is to put a link to it in Comparison of spreadsheet software article" -- especially given the fact that "Comparison of spreadsheet software" is hidden in such a way that alternatives do not receive their due weight at all. In this context, Gnumeric is not merely one of many spreadsheet software programs, it is one with Excel compatibility as the design goal, to make available an open source alternative. There is nothing to be "personally observed" about this; did you read the gnumeric article? If you use a search engine, you will see that it is frequently mentioned as an alternative  --rtc (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. Per WP:GACR, clause 3b, an article must talk about nothing whatsoever except its own subject. The due weight for another subject in Microsoft Excel article is by default zero, unless the contributor provides citations in secondary reliable sources that prove otherwise. Now, instead of showing me those sources, you toss some Google hits? To put it bluntly, it pretty much seems to me that you are trying to use Excel's fame as a mean of gaining publicity for your favorite app. You can call an WP:3O or WP:RFC if you wish but I don't think anyone would agree with you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that an open source clone of some application exists is part of the subject of that application, as the relation to any other subject. To me, it seems you are drawing false conclusions from some wikipedia policies just to keep the article free from anything that could be harmful to the interests of Microsoft. That conflicts WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV. The google hits provide enough sources and asking for "citations in secondary reliable sources" for an uncontroversial, obvious fact seems not justified, as if we need an academic paper to say that a program with the explicit purpose of being excel clone is actually an excel clone. --rtc (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lai–Massey scheme
Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Rtc, thanks for creating Lai–Massey scheme!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 2

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Block cipher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDEA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lai–Massey scheme, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page P-box (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shit test


A tag has been placed on Shit test requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ... disco spinster   talk  02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You've had the required discussion with the deleting admin (ie: your humble narrator). And I'm not minded to undelete it. You know the ropes, and are no doubt well aware of Deletion review and the other bureaucratic stuff. I'm not particularly fond of 'em either. It's fine by me if you re-start the article. Just add references this time round. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't have any discussion; the article was speedy deleted before I became aware of the deletion request. Can you please at least restore the article into my user name space? --rtc (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. User:Rtc/Shit test. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --rtc (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Karl Popper
Hello. I'm sorry I removed that text about Bela Kun. However, I did try to find a source for it and failed. You can see from my edits that I am usually very good at finding sources as I've been doing this for a while now. Nevertheless, it is not true that we should not remove uncited text without looking for a source. According to WP:proveit, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. ". This text was tagged - not by me - so I tried to find a source. I did not have to, but I did. My deletion was not arbitrary - that is an insult. And I'm sorry I failed. Myrvin (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC) I have made some comments about this area of the article in its Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my arbitrary edit comment. --rtc (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Myrvin (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Energy Catalyzer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Energy Catalyzer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You stopped reverting when the report at WP:AN3 was filed, but the central problem is that you showed no insight into your conduct at AN3, which means I had no confidence that you would not continue to disrupt the article, and blocks are intended to prevent future disruption. Indeed, you defended all your edits from the central disputed text to the tag you battled over when you didn't get your way.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I quite clearly stated on the discussion page of that article that I'm not going to waste any further energy on it. --rtc (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, if you had been blocked several days after you stopped reverting, I'd agree with you. However, after a report is filed at WP:AN3, it often takes a few hours to be dealt with, and I don't consider this to be grounds for an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But the principle is that blocks should be used only to prevent future disruption. Arguing along the lines of "if it hadn't taken a few hours it wouldn't have been punitive" is counterfactual. At the time of the block, things had already been resolved; the block served no valid material purpose. It was based on the judgement taking only the AN3 discussion into account, not my more recent messages on the article discussion page. PS: Looking again at the discussion page, ironically, it seems now opinions are actually beginning to change more in favour of my position that mentioning the stuff in the article isn't that wrong after all. --rtc (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this doesn't directly reply to your last post, but do you seriously believe that you communicated that in your first unblock request? As reviewing admin, I looked at the time of your reverts, and when you were blocked, because you said "Long stopped reverting". You seem to be saying that your seven word unblock appeal adequately communicated why you should be unblocked. From my perspective, it's your role to convince the reviewing administrator that you won't cause any further disruption by edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See my short comment below the first unblock request box in reply to Bbb23. --rtc (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather welcome a notice in my block log clarifying that the block was in fact punitive, not preventive, and hence against the rules. Sitting out complaints against such blocks, not granting an unblock, leads to a de facto regime of punitive blocks. It cannot be accepted that the rules clearly forbid such blocks, yet de facto they are applied and accepted anyway. Such blocks must no be without consquences. A block log notice clearly stating the invalidity of the block is a good way to decrease the incentive for gaming the system like that. --rtc (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're interested, but I wrote an essay WP:In praise of 1RR about why sticking to 1RR is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather like to see essays speaking out against the gross overuse of administrative power rather than pages tending to justify it. And I'd even more like to see my block log being amended by a note saying that the most recent block was not in line with WP:NOPUNISH --rtc (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

March 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Germanwings Flight 9525. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''This matter is under discussion on the talk page. Please stop edit warring. '' ― Mandruss  &#9742;  03:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

AirAsia QZ8501
Don't feel bad about doing the right thing. Here is a another mainstream reliable source pointing to murder suicide by pilot in another case:

Telegraph Mid-air explosion? Mechanical failure? A bomb?The crash of flight QZ8501 has spawned numerous far-fetched theories, including murder-suicide by the pilot or a terrorist attack – though no one has claimed responsibility. Bachcell (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525 that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, I'm Prhartcom. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Germanwings Flight 9525 that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Case at WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding regarding your contributions to the discussion at Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525. The thread is Incivility by Rtc.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you.
 * Obviously your input into the issue would be most valuable. -- wintonian  talk  05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They think we are the same person. I'm impressed by their level of stubbornness... They can't stand the fact that people think differently!! -179.153.241.50 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean
here? Rx-only and prescription only are the same thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anlage III is not the same as rx-only. The note for Anlage III should be "narcotic prescription form", not "prescription only". Except for emergencies, a normal prescription is not sufficient if the dose is higher than 10.625 mg Zolpidem tartrate. See Anlage III and Template_talk:Infobox_drug. --rtc (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearer wording would be useful. What you are refering to is a triplicate prescription for high doses and a normal prescription for lower doses. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Work on the legal status templates and the wording is currently in progress. --rtc (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Anlage III is a type of prescription. Also wondering if we should keep it linked? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It should still be linked; the box template was modified to properly expand the new value. --rtc (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you did :-) K that is fine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Birth control shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, this is in response to your continued edit warring on following the warning on 11 December. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence
PS I see I picked a good time to help prop up your spirits with a barnstar! In Wikipedia conflicts I've always like to let some time and distance give a balanced perspective. Cheers! Hope to see you back soon. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on talk:birth control. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''per. Note that Doc James is a qualified medical professional with peer-reviewed publications to his name, as well as being a very experienced Wikipedian.'' Guy (Help!) 12:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

AMD Platform Security Processor
Hi, Rtc. I recently created the AMD Platform Security Processor article, which is the AMD analog to Intel Management Engine to which you heavily contributed. If you also have expertise on that topic, you are warmly invited to help develop this new article further. Unfortunately, hardware design is not an area where I am very knowledgeable. It's strange however that both these important topics were "invisible" because they had been redirects until I separated them out into bonafide articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually regard this as another sublimal threat of blocking because I criticize the biased article. --rtc (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Placebo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I see you're trying to get me blocked. Should I request blocking myself?  That makes it easier for you. You want me to be blocked, don't you? You're not actually interested in my actual edits. --rtc (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Natureium (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you're trying to get me blocked. Should I request blocking myself?  That makes it easier for you. You want me to be blocked, don't you? You're not actually interested in my actual edits. Else you would be discussing on the talk page instead of those ridiculous warnings. This is now the fifth warning. Do you really think it makes sense to post those warnings? Do you really think it makes it more likely to get me blocked if you post the fifth one of them instead of one? Do you think it makes any difference whehter it's three, four or five? Don't you have enough evidence that I was informed clearly about the rules before the formal violation occurred so you have justification for the block? --rtc (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the more likely outcome is a topic ban per the discretionary sanctions about which you were warned above. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, as likely as last time you tried? --rtc (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When was that? The only interaction I can recall with you was when I blocked you for edit warring. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, you're kidding. you even withdrew it yourself because it slowly occurred to you it was very obvious it couldn't possibly get through. And it is just as obvious this time. Re your very obviously biased block, note "Also, that block stinks" --rtc (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your reading of that discussion is remarkably self-serving and displays a disturbing lack of self-awareness. Feel free to test your theory though. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. Contrary to your allegations I'm actually not a pointy user. I don't think there's one way to read that discussion and another one. At one point some intelligent users joined who actually checked your allegations and quickly saw they were nothing but hot air. I am and have always been a good faith user. And I don't think I have any huge troubles as long as I am acting in good faith and trying to improve the articles, weeding out ideology, misquoting and NPOV violations, be it from crackpots be it from scientism advocates. --rtc (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * scientism advocates - now I've heard everything. You can't be serious, right? That was sarcasm, right? byteflush Talk 23:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm dead serious. I am fully supporting Larry's rant against crusading scientism. --rtc (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It's an understandable reaction to the fact that the scientific debate is over and they lost. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read more philosophy books rather than lurking too much on talk pages of controversial articles, then you'll read that term from time to time in a less crackpotty context. --rtc (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, scientism is a term I only ever hear from homeopathists and creationists. It has a legitimate meaning with which I am familiar, having read the usual sources including Popper and Feyerabend, but it is also characteristically misapplied by those two groups to denigrate the application of science to a legitimate field of scientific inquiry where the conclusion of all relevant evidence is not ideologically acceptable to them. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think Larry possibly qualifies as a homeopathist or a creationist, nor do I.  We're merely criticizing a certain ideological approach that leads to group-think around the controversial articles. Those are gated by a tight-knit group of users who present themselves as the defenders of science and are very hostile towards views that are not as closed as their own. And who tend to be very opportunistic when it comes to advancing their views, just look at the recent edit history of the placebo article. This is not about "the scientific debate is over and they lost", this is about doctoring the article until it fits the groupthink that the placebo effect must be a myth. If so, fine, but the sources are much less uniformly supportive of that idea than the group-think tries to suggest. --rtc (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Winged Blades of Godric. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''You have been warned earlier and yet you continue. Consider this your final and only warning. '' &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 17:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the sixth warning already. Why don't you simply block? --rtc (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Number  5  7  18:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that JzG was also edit warring, making a fourth revert just outside the 24 hours. do you want to reconsider this block? I'm not sure it was exclusively for edit warring;  what do you say? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC).
 * Not that it would make much of a difference, but was it even actually outside the 24 hours? Not sure I understand the time stamps correctly but to me it looks as if they were all within 24 hours. --rtc (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the block should stand. It was a clear 3RR violation by Rtc. Subsequently casting aspersions on my motives (now removed) only serves to reinforce my view that Rtc has some issues that some time away might give them time to reconsider their attitude. Number   5  7  20:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have user boxes on secular humanism, evolution, the big bang and most significantly the flying spaghetti monster, which somehow suggests you might support the idea of "scientific point of view" that is the basis for The Ideology. Yeah, rethink my attitude. That's what the block is really about,I got that. No, I'm not goning to change my attitude and will keep "dissent[ing] from mainstream science" (as understood by this science enthusiast gang) as far as that is necessary to ensure the sources are quoted correctly and the article is not giving undue weight. I will continue defending the NPOV against The Ideology. (note this is not to be understood as a criticism of evolution, secular humanism or big bang theory, it is just my impression that those who put such things into user boxes have a certain overly enthusiastic approach with respect those things). --rtc (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I largely edit articles on football, elections and places in Israel and zero interest in medical-related articles. The attitude problem I'm referring to is not about your beliefs around this topic, but about your conduct as an editor. Rather than looking for conspiracies, consider how your behaviour is going to be viewed by an uninvolved outsider who was merely responding to an edit warring report (you are not the first person I blocked today). Number   5  7  20:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it was a pretty quick block for a very complex discussion and edit history and the fact the other editors were heavily editing the article, doing lots of deletions and reverts, while I was only insisting on the sources be matched with respect to core wording. How can The Ideology possibly be understood not as a conspiracy? I might be paranoid (as everyone in the universe is, HHGTTG), but does that mean they're not after me? PS: Yeah, I removed the statement about your motives from the review requeset. Your answer and the fact that you were referring to it was not yet known to me when I did that. --rtc (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a quick block because it was a clear 3RR violation. Number   5  7  21:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah and you gave me one week because of repeated violations, but apparently it was irrelevant that I discussed a lot, argued well, used RfC this time and was constantly harassed by 3RR violations of the opponents (which I did not report because of good will), with the most eager of those 3RR violators actually being the exact admin responsible for my last block (which has been described as "stink" by others) and only one 3rr blocks in the past 10 years? Apparently there's enough time to look for evidence against me, but not for other evidence that shows I was acting in good faith. Your block is very obviously biased and questioning your motives is justified, given your user-boxes. It doesn't help that you edit other topics, as long as your user boxes suggest you are a proponent of The Ideology. The length of the block, the fact that you stubbornly insist that there was a formal violation without the slightest consideration of the context, is clearly indicating that this block was because of The Ideology and not actually because of 3RR. --rtc (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You certainly have the right to remain silent. Yet this stinks so very obivously; there is no reason at all to keep the block since the problematic wording changed by me has never found its way back to the article (yet) so the block is objectively punitive. By the block, it is ensured that the article can be changed such as to conform with The Ideology, then proclaiming an alleged consensus for that new version. Adherents of The Ideology are now doing a straw discussion to justify their large-scale, fundamental changes to the article (to make it seem as if placebo effects were nothing but pseudoscience); a discussion that is worthless because me, the true opponent (I am skeptical about placebo effects, but definitely against proclaiming them to be completely non-existent) has been blocked and cannot take part in it. All this is in clear violation of the guidelines. Justifying block lengths based on 3RR violations years ago is unjust and condemnable and discriminates long-term users against those who simply create new accounts on purpose.  Please help, this is so obvious. Have others look at this, and please someone who is not an adherent of The Ideology.  you smelled the stink at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive972 so please have a look at this (the very same editor who tried to get me topic banned now violated 3RR and now managed to get me blocked because I was involved in his editwar, too) and comment and help if possible.  --rtc (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a lot of context for what the situation is here. I'll note that JzG managed to make his way to 4RR on Ideological bias on Wikipedia the day prior. So that's an unbecoming thing to get into the habit of.  G M G  talk  21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Even 6 days after the block, the sentence that was the subject of the edit war has never found its way back into the article. What on earth makes this block necessary, and with such a long expiration time?! Blocks that are objectively not necessary should not exist. This is purely punitive and was done because I disagree with The Ideology. --rtc (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking of "stinks"
Is anybody detecting the odour of sock? Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you but I don't wear socks, in fact never wore them. I have been a fair and good faith user since day 1. --rtc (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is basically that regardless of the outcome of that ridiculous checkuser request I am guilty of sockpuppetry. "the two articles which are the locus of Rtc's dispute"? I didn't even know the other existed. I can't laugh loud enough. The Ideology at work. --rtc (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUCK. Reverting to your preferred version of exactly two articles, using edit summaries wholly characteristic of your comments. The chances are roughly 1% Joe-job versus 99% sockpuppetry, based on past experience. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should I revert the changes?! I didn't disagree that much with many of the changes to the article. I mainly objected the false representation of that one huge study. I am skeptical about placebo effects myself, I am just against the claim that they are a complete myth in every respect, which is clearly not supported by the sources. --rtc (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See above: and as it happens this time it's the 1%. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The 99% must have been overwhelming evidence (beyond reasonable doubt for sure) that I am guilty. How does that fit your worldview? --rtc (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My worldview is that you are not here to build and encyclopedia. Your worldview may differ. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not a worldview, that's a false accusation. This is the accusation that's always made to discredit people who disagree with the popular distortion of WP:NPOV into WP:SPOV. And in fact I don't get the reason for the accusation since we actually seem to have the exact same view when it comes to the content of the article --rtc (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that this is about the content of a Wikipedia article instead of about your behavior, then you still do not "get it". Your behavior is unacceptable when I agree with the content you wish to add and your behavior is unacceptable when I disagree with the content you wish to add. This edit say it all. In one edit you have declared that In short, you have a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and you have openly declared your intention to continue to ignore our behavioral standards in order to "win" a fight. In my opinion, you should be indefinitely blocked with the offer of a quick unblock as soon as you stop blaming others for your behavior, show that you understand the reasons for your previous blocks, show a commitment to stop breaking the rules, and express a commitment to working with others instead of getting into fights. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You think that misbehavior by others justifies your own misbehavior ("Just to claim later on I was formally violating some rule. How many rules have they violated not just formally in the process?").
 * You blame the length of your block on others, ("The bias of this block is also well demonstrated by its extreme length") when it was clearly that long because you keep violating the same rules after multiple previous blocks.
 * You don't think that the rules apply to you ("the only option was to give up or breach the rules")
 * You're a person who obviously cares a lot about rules, but we have WP:IAR, which means the rules have to be taken with a grain of salt and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to end up in an endless WP:GAME of trying to trick the other users into violating rules to win a fight. In fact not me, but the others are trying to win their fight. "You think that misbehavior by others justifies your own misbehavior" It does sometimes. If someone violates 3RR then to claim later on the opponent in the fight violated 3RR than that obviously is bad faith. "You blame the length of your block on others" Because they are to blame. "when it was clearly that long because you keep violating the same rules after multiple previous blocks" Multiple previous blocks? Most years ago and the previous one described as Stinky and by JzG, the opponent. Those cannot be taken into account at all. "You don't think that the rules apply to you" The rules have to be breached when necessary to pursue the goal of writing a neutral encyclopedia, WP:IAR. If I should be blocked indefinitely you should be blocked indefinitely too for your formalistic approach to rules which (formally) violates the core rule WP:IAR. We should focus on where we agree (that a citation is needed for the claim that placebo is completely useless) not where we have different opinions. Perhaps cooperation makes a lot of rule breaches unnecessary. We both agree on the content issue and it shouldn't be a problem if we disagree on what is sometimes allowed or not to eliminate it. --rtc (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Charles James Napier once said
 * "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
 * You say "The rules have to be breached when necessary". I say "go ahead and breach the rules, and we will go ahead and block you from editing Wikipedia for doing that." I am now unwatching this page, telling the Wikia software to not show it if you ping me, and I intend to avoid any further interaction with you, on the principle that it is a waste of time having a discussion with someone who has a very high probability of being indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not only me who says "The rules have to be breached when necessary", it's also WP:IAR. Nor am I saying that rules should be broken at will. It's just one more of those false dichotomies. As if breaking the rules in some cases were equivalent to inhumane anarchy. Who is "we"? Are you speaking for yourself only or are you speaking on behalf of the cabal? "I am now unwatching this page" Why are you telling me? I never invited you to post here or watch the page. Feel free as you like, but make sure you understand the consequence that you are acting against your own interest here. We have common ground when it comes to the content dispute and you should rethink if you really only want to work together with people who totally agree with your false moral about rules. --rtc (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat
This is a polite reminder of our policy around legal threats. My posting of this link should not be taken by anyone as me claiming you have violated that policy, only that I want to make sure you are aware of the policy. I do not believe WP:AN or WP:ANI is capable of dealing with GDPR concerns. I don't personally believe they apply here, but am not a lawyer. Instead, I direct you to WP:Contact us page which may help you resolve any concerns you have. --Yamla (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * GDPR doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Rtc, I am closing the thread again. If you reopen it, I will block you. I should already block you for your threat to sock so you can have a clean block log, but I'll give you a second chance.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't GDPR apply to Wikipedia? And why are you claiming I "threated to sock"? I never did that. It's one false accusation after the next one. You're taking away any possibility to defend myself or voice my concerns or protest against the way I'm treated here. Propose any solution for my concerns, ANY! What bureaucracy is the right to ask? Is it the Arbcom? --rtc (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:AN can't help you out because we, administrators, literally don't have the power to blank out your block notices. It's not something I, an administrator, have the technical ability to do. That is why I said WP:AN and WP:ANI is not capable of dealing with your request. We literally don't have the technical ability to blank out your block notices. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is governed by American law. However, you're welcome to contact Legal to confirm that. There is no solution that will satisfy you. So drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is governed by American law, but not only. As long as Wikipedia accepts users from Europe, the GDPR applies to it obviously. Otherwise everyone could very easily circumvent the GDPR entirely by outsourcing things to American subsidiaries. --rtc (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The editors on the English Wikipedia are volunteers, if you are seeking action of a legal nature you may contact the Wikimedia Foundation at legal@wikimedia.org. If you would like to discuss changing the deletion policy, you may propose it at the various policy talk pages. As  warned above, further attempts at making a legal argument on-wiki may result in blocking, as we are not equipped to process those here. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you, as a member of the wikipedia community, not in any legal sense, think it is a good thing to have block entries forever in the log, where they pile up and are used against the user, no matter how old they are? --rtc (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as log entries are a record of what was actually done and allow the community at large to review and audit the activity of administrators to ensure they are accountable for their actions. Should an administrator make consistently bad blocks anyone should be able to review that and bring forth a discussion to review their fitness. — xaosflux  Talk 18:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be an argument for keeping a block log, but certainly not one for keeping its entries forever, regardless of their age. If an administrator makes consistently bad blocks this should be clearly visible from his recent blocking history. How could a block older than one, let alone 10 years possibly be relevant for that? --rtc (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See this page.If you can contribute constructively, sans all those GDPR stuff, you ought be probably welcomed and there ought be some net progress on the issue.Pinging . &#x222F; WBG converse 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see both sides of the argument, and the community is of course welcome to continue to evolve our policies. — xaosflux  Talk 19:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for the ping, WBG - the proposal has its ups and downs but input is always welcome. It wasn't that long ago we had a discussion about GDPR on Jimbo's page. I was also asked to write an op-ed: Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-02-05/Op-ed. From what I've gleaned from the advice of admins as it relates to our articles/BLPs - refer it to WMF legal. Atsme 📞📧 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very nice and well-written op-ed indeed. There still seem to be reasonable users out there. --rtc (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Zolpidem and sex
Hello. On my talk page, you said: "In you removed the section "Rare reports of sexual parasomnia (sleep sex) episodes related to zolpidem intake have also been reported". As a justification you claimed "not recognized as an adverse effect per prescription info". This is wrong. The package insert clarly says: "AMBIEN may cause serious side effects, including: - After taking AMBIEN, you may get up out of bed while not being fully awake and do an activity that you do not know you are doing. ... Reported activities include: ...- having sex"." I understand your point, but when I checked the review literature, there was nothing of note to indicate this is of sufficient weight, WP:UNDUE, to include it in the article. You could debate it first on the Zolpidem talk page to see what other editors think. --Zefr (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Private bank
A private banker would refer to a person but the article is about an organisation. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See Banking in Switzerland: "In Switzerland, such private banks are called private bankers (a protected term) to distinguish them from the other private banks". --rtc (talk) 16:24, 2 August 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)