User talk:Rwbest

Nomination of Worldwide energy supply for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worldwide energy supply 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/Worldwide energy supply until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Worldwide energy supply, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've resolved the problem as much as possible and given the reason in the edit summary. Please tell me what I can do more on Talk:Worldwide_energy_supply, not here. Rwbest (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You know the critical points well enough. This essay needs better sources, with exact references on what page or pages a fact is to be found. The Banner talk 20:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've resolved the source problem but you don't understand. Please look at Talk:Worldwide_energy_supply. Rwbest (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Worldwide energy supply for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worldwide energy supply 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/Worldwide energy supply& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI:
I have filed a case here: No original research/Noticeboard. The Banner talk 16:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide energy supply
What the joy to see the article unreliable and under-sourced by a deliberate effort NOT to add better sources or requested sources. Would it not be far nicer to keep your articles safe & sound instead of constantly challenged? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In 2016 the citations were adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course this is your argument forever en ever. But this is about information added after that AfD. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacobson
Clearly you're a fan of renewable energy (so am I) but I think you have less experience of Wikipedia biographies than I do. The statements you added to Jacobson's article represented his opinion as fact - this is not a good thing to do, since he's an outlier in many areas. Please propose changes on Talk first. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are now edit-warring for your preferred version of the article, and not taking into account clearly identified objections. Now would be a good time to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Your recent editing history at Mark Z. Jacobson 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. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm only trying to improve the lead of Mark Z. Jacobson which is ridiculous unbalanced, a caricature of Jacobson. But my attempts are severely hindered by reverts by others. Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts. Rwbest (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You better improve the main body of the article first and only after that you can improve the lead. And please, use independent, reliable sources that clearly state what you claim. And finally: refrain from personal attacks. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you won't stop your attempts, you'll be blocked. It really is that simple. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Rwbest. Following your initial edit here of April 4 in which you revised the lead, it appears you reverted five times to reinstate your version (after it was removed by others). You are expected to find a talk page consensus if your material is disputed. If you continue to revert you can be blocked for edit warring by any administrator. I saw this dispute reported at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is also at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Please respond there. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Mark Z. Jacobson
Hello Rwbest. The edit warring complaint has been closed with a warning to you. You may be blocked if you revert again on the subject of Mark Jacobson without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Worldwide energy supply for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worldwide energy supply 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/Worldwide energy supply& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI
I have filed a case at Sockpuppet investigations/Rwbest, as I do not think al participants in the discussions are real existing editor. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

June 2020
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Worldwide energy supply. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance template
Instead of edit warring and removing of a maintenance template, you could add the source at the place where it is requested. That will make the article more verifiable. Just "search the source yourself somewhere in this article" is not what the article needs. And you know that... The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In the text next to the table you can read
 * The table lists countries ... for the economy.[Ref 12]
 * So the table is well sourced. Rwbest (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And as usual the reader have to start searching which source to use. Why not add the source to the table? Or does that make the table so verifiable, that the old original research concern comes peeking around the corner again? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Data in the table are easily verified in the source, pointing mouse on countries. No original research at all. Rwbest (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New message from Alexis Jazz
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Linking to Wikipedia alternatives/forks for other languages. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson
Just curious. I noticed that you cut out a large chunk out of the article Mark Z. Jacobson, far more than you have added with your earlier edit. Unfortunately, you did not use the edit summery to explain why you have done that. So curious me likes to know what happened. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I merged Opinion on energy systems and Opinions on nuclear energy and deleted overlapping text. Rwbest (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)