User talk:Rudiverspoor

Hi Rudiverspoor. Would you mind looking at the Talk:Homeopathy page and joining in the discussion there? A number of people have put some work into this page, so it would be helpful if we could discuss your changes. This is normally what happens in WP when someone wants to make major changes to an established article. Regards --Lee Hunter 11:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It would appear that you have not made your way over to Talk:Homeopathy. would you please do so?Geni 13:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad you found your way to Talk:Homeopathy. I left town for a few days just when the shit hit the fan, so I'm still trying to catch up, but my general impression is that your edits on the whole have more POV problems than the earlier version. On the other hand, you obviously have different experience and a different perspective than the others working on the article, and I see that as a resource. It is beyond question that you can help improve the article. (Just don't try to do it single-handedly.) To work toward a better article while minimizing friction, I would ask you to generally go slower. If you make fewer edits at one time, then we can discuss those and come to a consensus. If you rewrite the whole article at once, you are inviting reversions. Also, where you can reasonably expect resistance, go to the Talk page first, or at the very least simultaneously. So, now, let's get down to work! Art Carlson 15:36, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Nomination of Ground regulatory system for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ground regulatory system is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Reid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hume (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) 17:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556860604 your edit] to Romanticism and epistemology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Romanticism and epistemology
It's a nice essay, but it is not a WP article. I really do not see how it fits in here, where we write about  things based only on sources, not our own reflections and judgment. As reviewing administrator,  I'm going to have to list it for deletion, but I urge you to continue contributing to elated articles.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Regarding the proposal for deletion, I am a bit perplexed. The topic is an important one regarding an important aspect of Romanticism, and in particular the role of the main English thinker/philosopher behind the Romantic movement. There are various citations from third sources, as well as from Coleridge himself and his works, the focus of the topic, but an article of this nature also is complex and cannot be easily packaged. All topics involving certain ideas require a different approach from issues that are more straight forward. There are many other lengthy articles on Wikipedia involving ideas and concepts. Could you provide some guidance as to what the difference is between an 'article' and an 'essay"?Rudi (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)rudi

Proposed deletion of Romanticism and epistemology


The article Romanticism and epistemology has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.

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.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the proposal for deletion, I am a bit perplexed. The topic is an important one regarding an important aspect of Romanticism, and in particular the role of the main English thinker/philosopher behind the Romantic movement. There are various citations from third sources, as well as from Coleridge himself and his works, the focus of the topic, but an article of this nature also is complex and cannot be easily packaged. All topics involving certain ideas require a different approach from issues that are more straight forward. There are many other lengthy articles on Wikipedia involving ideas and concepts. Could you provide some guidance as to what the difference is between an 'article' and an 'essay"?Rudi (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)rudi

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romanticism and epistemology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (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) 11:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ground regulatory system concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ground regulatory system, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Ground regulatory system


Hello Rudiverspoor. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Ground regulatory system.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 레비 Revi Discuss SUL Info 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio
Your addition to Johann Friedrich Blumenbach has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this notification, though I am unsure as to what was deleted and why it was presumed to be a copyright violation. My understanding is that one can use short quotes from various works for illustration purposes, as in reviews, so long as the source is cited. Is this not correct? I appreciate any clarification. Rudi (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)rudiverspoor

Copy and pasting
One of your edits appear to be copy and pasted from another source. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific as to which edit material is presumed to be copied and pasted so I can examine it. Thank you. Rudi (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)rudiverspoor

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)