This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've copied the following comments, which have since been archived, from Jimbo's talk page and unindented them. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible that experts will insist on minor incorrectness such as wording "English is a West-Germanic language" rather than "English is a descendant of" or "English is derived from" or similarly insisting that Futurology be described as "art" or "postulating" (the latter word being very correct yet likely to be obscure in the absence of a modereately advanced study of some related subject, being that postulation may be confused as another word for futurology in practice). The manual of style suggests that an article be directed at the person assumed to have no prior knowledge of the subject. Is this a largely overlooked principle as was once copyright and citation? Where edits are reverted, this principle is rarely acknowledged in my experience, although it is directly in line with Wikimedia principles. ~ R.T.G 15:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing even remotely incorrect about the wording "English is a West-Germanic language" (even though I would omit the hyphen), just as there is nothing even remotely incorrect about saying "a cat is a mammal" or "Jimbo Wales is a human being". In fact, it would be incorrect to say "English is a descendant of" or "derived from West-Germanic", because, in fact, it is derived from "proto-West-Germanic". Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well Florian, obviously you do not mind confusing the man with the monkey and if you would omit the hyphen or add a proto, I would suggest there is something, perhaps remotely, WRONG. High-level gubberish of some sort really (West-Germanic is a group from which others are derived/evolved/descended... !?). The article is up for Article of the Year on the Norwegian and apparently they would differ with you. ~ R.T.G 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but ... an appeal to authority, which you otherwise despise so much? Sorry, I just cannot take you seriously as a discussion partner here. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The lead section of English language consists of two sentences. The first one contains a single and confusing classification. The second is a short list of countries of the world. But they are very long two sentences yes? Well, not really no. ~ R.T.G 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We have drifted off the topic of Cooke's question, but I would like to respond to your questions in case it helps you contribute to the articles.
Mid Ulster English is not called Ullans. Ullans is a neologism that is closely linked to the name of the magazine of the Ulster Scots Language Society, and is analogous to the Scots word Lallans, which can be loosely translated as Lowland Scots.
People around Derry and Coleraine do indeed sound quite Scottish. (Sounding a bit Scottish is not just a unionist thing: have you ever listened closely to the Deputy First Minister?) However the sources used for this article suggest that Scots actually died out in County Londonderry over 50 years ago, though the accent and many words remain in the way people speak English. You will also find this in East Belfast. This seems to be the conclusions of the researchers, but the language boundaries they draw are not hard and fast, so I would not be surprised if there are varieties in the middle between Mid Ulster English and Ulster Scots.
By the way, Seamus Heaney credits the Scots language heritage of his mid Ulster language for some of his English skills and his affinity with Anglo-Saxon texts like Beowulf.
You are very unlikely to meet people who will speak Ulster Scots to you. I have never heard it face-to-face. James Fenton pointed out in an interview a few years ago that Scots speakers speak it in their own homes, but (unconsciously) switch to a standard Ulster English when speaking with strangers.
If you listen to A Kist O Wurds (BBC Radio) you will find that perhaps 5 to 10 minutes of each 30 minute programme is in Ulster Scots, and if you are lucky, spoken by contemporary speakers from Donegal, Antrim or Down. You (and perhaps the UFF supporters) will be surprised to find that the speech is more than 'a bit Scottish': it doesn't sound very different from the works of Robert Burns, or indeed the contemporary spoken language of rural Ayrshire or Aberdeen.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
FlaggedRevs
Hi, and thanks for the question. In brief, FlaggedRevs is an extension to the software that runs wikipedia and other wikis, which changes the way edits are processed and displayed. So when an editor makes an edit, instead of that edit being visible immediately to all readers, the edit is held in a 'queue' until it is "sighted" by someone that we trust to check that it doesn't contain things like vandalism or libel. So you, as a logged-in user, wouldn't see anything different, because all logged-in users always see the latest revision whether or not it's "sighted". Annonymous readers, however, wouldn't see those edits until they were sighted. All administrators and rollbackers would automatically have the ability to sight revisions, and anyone else can ask for a new user right called "reviewer", which allows them to sight revisions too. The German wikipedia already has over 7,000 reviewers; the expectation is that people like yourself would easily qualify, so you'd get it if you asked for it. I hope this explains further, don't hesitate to ask if you've got any more questions. Happy‑melon 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright Problems board
Hi. Thanks for noting that lingering problem! I have moved your note, though. We don't list tickets directly on the copyright problems page, but on the various subpages that are transcluded to it. Though the tagging is old, it has never before been placed on the "copyright problems" board, so I have moved it to the current listings, here. (The "older listings" section is specifically for items that are transcluded on other days when the rest of the listings for that day are finished. Those tickets are basically listed in two places--their original days and the consolidated section. When they are finished in consolidated, they are erased. We need a permanent record, so it needs to be attached to a specific day.) I'll go ahead and look at the matter now, though, to see what seems appropriate for moving forward, since this one was handled out of process from the beginning. I'll make any notes I have there. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring
I see that you are edit warring on the English language article. I want to be sure you are familiar with the policy WP:3RR. —teb728tc 09:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the plain reverts were undisputed and the rest is in ongoing amicable discussion. Not that I havent been replying to TEB, but just that I reply for my own little talk page here. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You apparently misunderstand: You made these four edits, 1, 2, 3, 4 within a 24 hour period , which violated WP:3RR. (I am not telling you this to criticise but to explain. And since you hadn’t been warned before the last one, it was not a big deal anyway.) —teb728tc 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are right, within 24 hours I reverted 3 times but it is a common mistake to misrepresent data particular to the republic as Ireland. Although involving myself in a related (Irish naming) dispute, I don't think this particular matter is is disputed (or even debated in lengthy discussion). In fact, if people acknowledged that confusion more often, it may lend weight to describing the republic as the republic. In various lengthy naming discussion, I haven't seen statistical description referred to. If it's worth anything, I still believe that all editors discussing English language and (most part) Irish naming have been on good faith. ~ R.T.G 11:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
And I would add that if anyone shows good faith it is TEB728 coming here to point this out ~ R.T.G 11:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually you reverted 4 times in 24 hours—3 would not have been a violation. Just to be sure you understand, being right is not one of the exceptions to 3RR, nor is ongoing discussion. —teb728tc 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Conceeded. I like the acceptance of Anglo-Saxon but I still think that English has such default modern notability that the article could be a plug (and/or opposite) with descriptions of phonetics and vocabulary, in the modern sense, but with a "hatnote" for the history article which then allows each branch to particulate as equally notable. FlaggedRevs, if it ever appears, will put a little info line on every article anyway. Wikiversity adds extra info in its pages, for instance, and it's not rare to branch two main areas of interest in the same item. POV forks are not the same as that. I can show you a POV fork example in the articles lac and shellac which one talks of how insects are crushed to make varnish and the other tells of how insect secretion is collected to glaze candy but neither of them say that insects are crushed and it goes on the candy (used by Mars confectionary no less so quite notable), and neither linked to the other although the writing was about the same thing (of course I added a link between a few days ago but still completely misleading POV forking needing rewrites or, preferably, mergers). I cannot imagine an article on bread and yet avoiding or downplaying the mention of wheat. 8) ~ R.T.G 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
...the next logical merger step? –xeno (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would think so. I think the UK one involves a shareholder or other financially interested party initiates it, where the US (and Irish too I beleive) is just a trustee based process ~ R.T.G 14:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It may require an hours work for that one as one is based on US law and the other UK law but so long as nobody in the law project objects, it should be possible enough ~ R.T.G 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave that in your capable hands. Let me know if you need any assistance. As with the receiver (legal) move, I think leaving the histories in place and just redirecting would probably be the best method, rather than a histmerge. –xeno (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts that you wrote on my talk page. I don't like the provision that the results will be for two years without any consideration of what happens after that. It seems that any result will not be too fair to some people yet the following two years could likely be the same result. If there were rotating titles of the better choices (not rotating of all choices), that might be more fair. My initial impression is that some choices are better than others. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. User F203 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Rotating them is interesting but the arguments over the matter, which is so insignifigant in a way, run into hundreds of pages. It is daft so they are going to say "This is the final debate." Anyone argueing can just go read that. Try looking at the archives of Ireland, Republic of Ireland and some others to see the length of the arguments. These people could be discussing and researching content instead so it's best to have a final decision. At the end of the day, to the best of our knowledge the Irish Republic was envisioned and created by Irish freedom fighters and the date of its origin is a sort of Independence Day for the Irish so it is hard to accept these folk saying "Republic of Ireland is a bad title" and hard even to accept their sincerity at times! ~ R.T.G 17:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't tweak Steve
If you can't say something nice, stay off his talk page. You're well into blockable incivility there.
On the Reference Desk, you may want to spend a bit more time looking before you leap on the hard science questions, and I would strongly urge you to minimize your interaction with SteveBaker there as well.
You're both supposed to be responsible adults, there's at least some expectation around here that you'll act the part. If you start poking Steve again, then you will be blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
By the standard he set for me, I might as well have kissed his feet. As you said to him, there was no need for him to attack me. I found what I looked for or didn't. His world didn't stop turning now or we would all be in trouble. ~ R.T.G 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Disruption
You have been accused of sockpuppetry here. Editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny is forbidden, and if you continue you will blocked. — JakeWartenberg 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please establish consensus on talk page if you want the disputed content included. Several editors have already pointed out on the talk page why the Bhaktivedanta translation is not a reliable source in general. Also note that the discussion of an individual verse is undue in this article, unless it can be shown that the verse is significant enough to have been highlighted by secondary reliable sources. The burden to establish suitability of sourcing and dueness of content is now on you especially for dubious fringe claims.
I would recommend that you look for scholarly sources on the topic, and then discuss them on the talk page. Continued edit-warring will only result in you getting blocked and that is not a productive way to proceed. Cheer. Abecedare (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Position statement
Hi, RTG. I've added templates and formatting to your Position statement as per the agreement on the format they would take on the project page. Please fill in the "nutshell" section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, when making a drastic change to any page, regardless of what change to what page, would you please open a discussion on the talk page even if only for the record. If you would like to write an article about Draught Guinness I suggest you do that after first learning a few things like how to spell the name. ~ R.T.G 09:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
O dear. I understand that people can and do make mistakes - I make mistakes myself. No problem. But when people are aggressive and arrogant as well as mistaken that does make it hard to be polite. Anyway - Thanks for your notice. I can see that you don't quite understand why I made the changes I did. The article is about a beer brand called Guinness Draught, though people have been conflating it with the company, the Guinness family, and the brewery. I changed the article to make the distinction clearer between the brand and the company. The brand is identified as Guinness Draughtby the company, beer, websites, notable beer writers, industryandothermedia, while the company that makes the brand is known as Guinness. I can see that somebody else disputes the value of changing the name of the article to Guinness Draught and is requesting a discussion on the matter. That is appropriate, and I will set up a discussion. I have noticed that you have made a crude revert which has undone a variety of edits, including those indisputably done under policy, so I will undo your revert. If there are aspects of any of this that you still are not clear on, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *YES! 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussion started here. SilkTork *YES! 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I drank the stuff for nearly twenty years. "Draught" is a term rather than a brand. It means "Comes out of a beer tap in a pub". The oldest Guinness, and most recognisable for some Irish people is not draught, it comes out of a bottle. I mean no disrespect but you really are not familiar with the origins of "draught" and "Guinness". We have a lot of Irish editors. Guinness, the Irish drink makers, is a brand as familiar as Coca Cola or Budweiser. Think about that. Was it really Draft Guinness Brand all along or was it really Guinness, comes in draught (out of beer tap) which they talk about a lot? ~ R.T.G 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The references I supplied above support the brand being called Guinness Draught. They show that the brand is called by that name in keg, bottle and can. Nitrogen is used to create that foamy head. When in the can and bottle a small device releases nitrogen when the container is opened. This device is called a "widget", and was invented by Guinness. Guinness call the brand Guinness Draught to emphasise the use of the nitrogen which gives the beer the same quality regardless of how it served - it is the same when served from the can as it is when served from a keg in the pub. It looks like you think I wanted to talk about draught Guinness - that is, Guinness served in a pub from a keg; and it looks like you feel that "draught" should be spelled as "draft". Draft is an American spelling, and the Wikipedia guidance WP:ENGVAR would indicate that such spellings should not be used in the Guinness article - for example, the article uses "colour" rather than "color". I hope I have now clarified the situation, but if not, please let me know and I'll explain a bit further. SilkTork *YES! 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
When I click that link to the Guinness website I get a splash page asking me to verify my age. The largest thing on the page is the Guinness logo. The word Draught does not appear on the page. The word draught in the beer context is relatively new to things Guinness. One of the logos features is the date "ESTD1759". There was no draught beer for a hundred years after the name of this brand was settled. And. You spell a thing how it is spelled. Not nessecarily how the Americans spell it. Those guidelines are largely to cover use of words such as specialised and specialized. The name Guinness Draught is no doubt trademarked letter for letter. Changing the spelling is unnessecary, incorrect and therefor misleading. If you wish you should make Guinness Draft redirect to the appropriate place. ~ R.T.G 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi RTG. I have filed a mediation case for us to discuss the Guinness article. The aim of the case is to allow progress to be made on the Guinness article. The mediation process is entirely informal and voluntary, and there is no suggestion of any blame being placed on anyone, or of anyone being told off. I admit I responded poorly to your message, and I allowed myself to be rude to you. I apologise for that. I would like to get to the source of your discomfort with the work I have done on the Guinness article, and to get on with progressing the article. I'm not sure when the mediation will start - sometimes it can take a while. I'll keep you informed. SilkTork *YES! 12:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
From your Guinness Draft link above I think I can see what's happened. I moved Guinness to Guinness Draft rather than Guinness Draught. That was my mistake. The intention was to move it to Guinness Draught - there is no product with the name "Guinness Draft". I think you'll note that in all other places I have used the phrase "Guinness Draught" (well, I hope that's what I've done!). So you were right - I do need to learn how to spell! SilkTork *YES! 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Mediation has started. SilkTork *YES! 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. Where are you from? --HighKing (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I will tell you but if those making the dispute are to carry out a survey it needs to be better than "Are you a Prod?" because that is the same as "Slap!" in some books, I can tell you.
My earliest years were in Belfast and after that deep down south for most of my life. That makes me from Ireland so I guess my reasons for interest are irrelevant but I will say, I have no special preference for Protestant or Catholic although I am Christian and I have good reason to be sympathetic for Unionists and/or Nationalists excepting for any particular person I choose not to. I would unite Ireland but not by dropping the border, shaking hands has been working a lot better for some time now and what else would they do? That is uniting it in my view. Re-defining a seperate Ireland today is just dividing it again. ~ R.T.G 19:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget some may say they are British but and not Irish when their ancient history is in Ireland and even gaelic from north and Scotland. Those are equally important opinions (even though more cynical non-Irish er Irelanders will prefer your voting preference, tis what tis) Also some has close ties to Ireland, ther family, their life or even their culture may be closely in it for some from America and Africa. ~ R.T.G 20:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well you appear to take a healthy view and have a tolerant attitude, recognising that people's beliefs form a greater part of their identity than the place on Earth where they were born. --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
RTE show these little villages in South America sometimes and there they are 3rd or 4th generation half Irish sounding talking Spanglish or something. They probably give us all a fairly good reference and know less about the border than they do about St Patricks Day or something. Look at Nigeria. they are more Irish than we are! It is difficult for me to close us into a box especially when I would only have half a ticket myself. If they want to call England Ireland tomorrow, away you go. Just be happy, AND. dont say this is not Ireland because it is. How many Britains are there? Britain, Brittany, Bretange, ... there is a few and it is a Gaelic name too. ~ R.T.G 12:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Is the new version clearer? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I had to check why you removed the word thermodynamic and it makes more sense active and inactive. I did have to look up the properties of enzymes but I understood it all insofar as basics this time. Very good Tim many thanks ~ R.T.G 17:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Great. You can think of enzymes as joining two processes together, so that one drives the other. Like a rope and pulley joining a large falling weight to a smaller weight, so the smaller weight is lifted up. The spontaneous process releases the energy that the enzyme uses to make the desirable process happen. On a large scale metabolism breaks down food to release energy, so that it can use this energy to build the molecules that make up your body. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Ireland
I replied to your post over at m:Talk:Wikimedia Ireland. It's feel it's a pity there's wasn't more bits back to the idea - but then again has there ever even been an Irish meet up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
x2 back there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Racism
I find your claim that holding a worldview contrary to republican-socialism is racist, gravely racist aganst the conservo-monarchial race. Aside from an admin telling you not to make frankly, strange and unusual personal attacks just yesterday, you seem to have a very.. lets just say, eccentric concept of what words mean. Apparently judging from your other, special encounters with editors last night, your confusion extends to the terms "ethnic" and "nationalism" too. I can only suggest that you invest in a Thesaurus before rudely butting into private conversations which do not concern you, making odd personal comments on editors. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course you are not racist and agressive. Why, even your great great grand-ancestry was Irish and you are just telling the Republicans on Wikipedia what they are and what their ancestors are to put them stright and in their place. Of course you have looked into my involvement with admin Rodhullandemu and found him to be both accurate and upholding of our Wikipedian standards. Next time you want to come around to some little Irish girls talk page and telling her what muck savages her ancestors were and how useless her countrymens contributions to Wikipedia have been, I should just give you a little barnstar of appreciation on your talkpage. How would you like that? ~ R.T.G 15:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You claimed that admin Rodhullandemu is a "racist" too. I suggest you refrain from making such unusual comments in the area. Not that it is any of your business (recurring theme here?) but one of my parents is Irish and one is Italian. Not great-great-great-fathers-cousins-uncles-sisters-brother. Hence my interest in sometimes edit in these areas. So far as I'm aware those groups are part of the "caucasian race". Also your framing is to say the least fanciful, my comment was that while she claims there is some sort of "Anglo-American Imperial" conspiracy against a poor "opressed" Ireland on Wikipedia, republicans themselves here never build articles which present the actual Irish civilisation which existed. Its left mostly to people living in Britain and the USA to do so (I've had to create the Irish saints article, make numerous coats of arms for Irish royal families, maps for old Gaelic kingdoms, etc). - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, the time has come and passed for you to make descrediting assertions about Irish Republican Wikipedians, a whole ethnic group of a country. I don't care what Sarah777 said at the moment. You will not be continuing to post remarks which appear only to attack Republicans, or other ethnicities. You understand the reasons for this. That is the end of it. Just as when you claim I could be quoted as branding Rodhullandemu, you are making accusations up and now I have had too long in these talk pages for a few days. I outlined your mistakes on your talkpage before you ever posted here. I have explained your mistakes in detail on two occassions. I make only minor edits to this wiki and voice a few concerns about accuracy on articles. If you need further help, take up that mentorship offer. If you continue to explain your disdain for Irish here, I will ask for help. ~ R.T.G 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Civility
The "not very good at reading" comment was not particularly civil, and has little hope of de-escalating a conflict. Would you please consider refactoring? Thanks, --Elonka 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Your UAA Report
I have declined your report at UAA as a non-violation of the username policy. Since the discussion of this is already at ANI, please keep it centralized there. TNXMan 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"Anglo-American Imperial conspiracy"?
Hi RTG, User:Yorkshirian reckons here that this & this was "pointing out that there isn't actually an "Anglo-American Imperial conspiracy" on Wikipedia". Is that what you thought it was? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fairyhouse racecourse
Hello! Your submission of Fairyhouse racecourse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! CalmerWaters 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Fairyhouse Racecourse
On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fairyhouse Racecourse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
No Gabbe you shouldn't have warned me at all. I did not wander off topic. I have a serious concern about the bias jockeying on that article. If you are lawyering abstractly you may be gaming the system to protect your own set of values or those that you seek to identify with. All questionable entries are open to discussion. You seem not to have read that or the gudeline on general forum discussion which you have suggested to me. Was it really nessecary for me to pursue you and tell you that your idea of wrong was actually wrong? ~ R.T.G 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It certainly wasn't my intention to appear hostile, and if I've offended you I do apologise. My concern is that your talk page edits are very difficult for me to comprehend. This edit, for example, doesn't appear to be about what Veganism should say about honey-consumers who consider themselves vegan. Gabbe (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Communication
Hi there, RTG. I apologize for being dense, but your recent comments at Talk:Veganism leave me completely confused. This is probably partially due to my own communication difficulties, but judging by others' responses I think it may be also due to other factors. If you communicate differently it may be helpful to disclose this so other editors will be more understanding. If this is not the case, I would suggest rereading your comments before submission to ensure they can be easily understood by others. I apologize if this unsolicited advice is overly presumptuous; I only give it because I am interested in your views. -kotra (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I do. Can you diagnose this sort of thing? You aren't allowed to give medical advice on Wikipedia you know. What would you suggest I do? Are you a doctor? Help!! My mind is losing me!!!~ R.T.G 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not a doctor, nor would I feel comfortable giving medical advice I'm afraid. If you truly think you need help, I would seek a professional in person. -kotra (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Depends what sort of help I was looking for ~ R.T.G 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Affirmative action. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You can revert as many times as you'd like, but if you're caught reverting more than 3 times in a 24-hour period you'll be blocked. Please see WP:3RR and WP:DE. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 05:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism doesn't count toward the 3RR rule, but I don't see an exception for "obvious disruption". In fact, I think your edit-warring is "obvious disruption", regardless of the merits of your argument. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 06:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, RTG. Note that, as mentioned in the warning above, you may be blocked for edit warring even if you do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please stop edit warring on Positive action (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Persons Unknown
Hi RTG. Just a friendly word of advice. You said on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page that you "intend in future to remove whole comments, indescriminately, which place a strong weight on accusing persons unknown". Removing whole comments from any talk page for any reason is considered a serious no-no on Wikipedia. If you start doing anything like that you'll find yourself blocked very quickly. It won't be me, I'm just here to give you a heads-up. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing disruptive comments is a yes yes. That is all I am talking about, the recurring spats of "This group, that group". There is room to remove them already but with a specific guideline for this particular little niche it would reduce any drama and leave the offending editors thinking "Maybe if I rephrase that without the..." Currently editors seem to go away thinking they just didn't convince us of X Secret Societys bad nature. If we can convince them that X Secret Society hasn't revealed itself yet... they might consider collaborating just that little bit more optional to begin rather than tipping all the cards over. I would feel much more comfortable correcting such comments if it was clear how and why they were wrong rather than relying on WP:Personal attacks etc. which don't detail this disruption although it is a recurring theme. Half the pages at ARBCOM are filled with it. Be specific or be not because it was of no use... ~ R.T.G 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, the Wikipepedia Talk page guideline says, "The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outlined below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." No Personal attacks says, "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Accusing "persons unknown" is, by definition, not a personal attack. Again, if you think I'm wrong, don't even bother to reply, just go ahead and do it. My intention was not to oppose you, just to make sure you are aware that other people (including admins) may not see things the same way as you. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
It goes along with what I am saying Scolaire, an attack on a group of unspecified people is always offensive to someone in the same way as a personal attack and it is well over 90% of instances in the racial, ethnic or political boundary. It's a convenient way of outing people who are contributing neutrally, attacking with lesser reprecusions or disrupting people who were able to contribute neutrally, nobody needs to cope with that in real life and it is sad when people must. Shout about the cabals and you won't get the same treatment as personally insulting an editor but don't you get a little twinge when people rant about nationalists and unionists or whichever ideal you care most for? Isn't it as personal as you can get anyway? It drives people crazy just as much as effing, blinding or personal derogotising. I decided to delete such a comment if I found one in future (because I see lot's since a few weeks), and there is minor scope in the guidelines to do that, but in that I really think that it should be covered in the guidelines as serious because it is the only thing left to get out of hand today in disputes. It couldn't be the wrong way to go and must be possible to note simply and clearly without even changing accepted policies. Why would I not reply to you? Ha! ~ R.T.G 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
When a learned bigot stigmatises a group - he educates his disciples. That is how that game has always worked. One may stigmatise a group rightfully using example, that is like a legal procedure, but when attaching stigma to persons unknown the game has changed and into something more serious. It is rare that group stigma can be wholly acceptable, if at all. Bad groups set their best examples as individuals or small pairings. ~ R.T.G 08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of freeware, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of freeware. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pcapping 14:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi RTG, this is in response to your revert on this article. Sorry I wasn't more specific in my edit comment. Allow me to elaborate. The most relevant section of WP:EL is WP:YOUTUBE, for Youtube that is the source of the embedded video in the external site. The concerns here are with copyright infringement, linking to rich media formats, and the reliability of user-submitted content. Secondly, "It Works Like This" is a blog; a self-published source that is "normally to be avoided" (WP:ELNO #8). In light of this, may I remove the link again? Marasmusine (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on the copyright issue it's definitely not provided by the owners. The Youtube section is actually one of the smallest on the page and tells us that there is no blanket ban on Youtube and the concern should be the particular video. The entry on WP:ELNO is debatable. You can't play a dvd on your computer or view the internet without a plug-in as part of Microsofts legal issues were with providing those things. They made it illegal to provide an operating system which does everything without plug-ins because that kills all competition. ~ R.T.G 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a typo. I meant #11, not #8. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"It Works Like This" doesn't really tick the boxes for Wikipedia, I just reverted because I wanted to know was the summary "copyvio" or even "blog" whatever you thought it was because the guideline is a long page. By the time you typed "...as per WP:EL." you'd typed way more than "copyvio". I hope it makes sense. It's worse when someone often leaves no summary and removes a lot of good faith edits. I removed it again now. ~ R.T.G 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't mean any harm. I thought it was a separate question. -- RA (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well the question of the flag used in the template was raised. I didn't appreciate that someone might say "That's a bad idea" and move it somewhere else which is much like binning. If someone did that while being impartial or saying "That's a good idea let's get a broader opinion of it" but as was I didn't even think of that and took some offense... I altered someones talk post myself once to highlight words I thought were misleading on the same page and got away with it but usually I see folk getting upset about it if their posts are altered. I think I corrected a wording once as well for readability on an ARBCOM page. ~ R.T.G 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Filing a Request for Clarification
Hey there, I've properly formatted your recent request. When asking for clarification on a previous case, the name of the case is used as the section title. Thanks, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah well you shouldn't have because you named it the wrong thing. Don't get me going please. ~ R.T.G 11:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hint: badmouthing ArbCom clerks is not the way to make your case to ArbCom. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah thanks for the analysis. I really appreciate that. ~ R.T.G 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My alteration was to bring it inline with the process for requesting arbitration. By definition, a Request for Amendment must be about a previous case, and they are named as such. The instructions for doing so were clearly linked to from the request page, so while it's really not a big deal please do keep it in mind. Thank you, ~ Amory(u • t • c) 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You put it into a diffrent request. There are three requests of which I made one. I could have added my request to the other thread if it was about naming Ireland articles. When you changed the title it actually made my request difficult to understand. 31hrs? 2 reverts to the content of my own post? I appear to have upset somebodys integrity. Oh well I am sure I will grow out of it in so many hours time. You think I should be blocked. You think I am incorrect to maintain the nature of own post or that is up to others without discussion? It's a bit weird for me. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, I have spent many hours myself looking at Arbcom cases. I understand to some degree, I believe, the work and patience involved in making a committed contribution to the whole thing. It is beyond me I am sure. I was unimpressed that the title of my request had been altered to something else, regardless of the intention. If I was condescending, that be the source of it. I do not begrudge you any mistakes you may make. I respect the bureaucracy of Wikipedia with awe at times. I see no reason in that not to communicate with you, discontented or otherwise. I cannot be sure of the bee in our trekkie freinds bonnet but I am quite sure that that would be it. "Badmouthing" you? I don't think so. Condescending perhaps. Expressive of discontent? Purposefully so. I stressed it. I wouldn't pursue you around accusing you of things you hadn't done or punishing you for things that you are welcome to do. I would inform you if I thought you had made a mistake. Oh well. ~ R.T.G 02:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Requests for clarification are intended to be for clarification of a previous ArbCom case and according to common practice are named "Request for clarification: [case name]". What previous ArbCom case is your request for clarification about, if not "Ireland article names"? Paul August☎ 13:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well my request didn't make sense after being altered to say it was a request for clarification about naming Ireland articles because that is not what it was. I think I should just remove it (but hey I will probably get a two year ban if I dare to do that). The request is about Arbcom instructions. It was worded correctly. I do not see why it could not be linked to the Ireland naming case without removing the wording of my request. Except for "We don't do it like that" can you see any reason why not to link to the case but also leave the correct wording in place? Interfering with talk page words is often a starting point for aggro. In fact I am asking you to do that, word my request and also leave your link to the case there just to show that it could be done.... ~ R.T.G 14:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What sort of nonesense was this? The clerks alter a request of mine incorrectly and I changed it back. Were they supposed to decide what I was trying to request? Am I not wqualified to decide what I am requesting or not? After one revert and one alteration to my own post, you have certainly made yourself clear but I will obviously still decide my own words for myself. It's probably your little joke (31 hrs?) Well I hope my response keeps you entertained for many long cold hours. ~ R.T.G 01:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I will just add the obvious, you have abused your tool. A true Vulcan maintains his composure beyond reproach for at least seven years at a time. Prosper and live long you Ferengi. ~ R.T.G 02:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not the first time, IMO, that Sarek has done so. A similar situation happened between when Sarek blocked me last week. Good luck if you choose to appeal the block. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see much in Yorkshirian's post to get upset about, although he could perhaps have phrased his question better as I agree that it could, especially on a controversial subject, come across as trolling. Your responses obviously assumedthis and were unfortunately less than civil. As I've mentioned elsewhere, when I see editors complaining about Yorkshirian while behaving at least as badly, I generally find it easier to give everyone the benefit of AGF rather than unfairly sanctioning one 'side' and not the other :) EyeSerenetalk 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'd like to address a couple of points if I may?
Firstly, I'm not Yorkshirian's mentor, either formally or informally, and certainly not his protector. I unblocked him when he agreed to abide by some restrictions (some permanent, some temporary); that's it. I have been approached by editors regarding his editing a few times since then, but I've generally found that the faults don't lie exclusively with Yorkshirian. He will often respond to something inappropriately, setting himself up by manufacturing ammunition that others will then use against him. Trouble is, the things he responds to are often inappropriate themselves (or he's misunderstood them), so I can't in all fairness lay the blame entirely on him. As I said above, I understand why his question on Sinn Féin could be seen as trolling and his phraseology seems to contain implied assumptions about Sinn Fein, hypocrisy, and the Spanish and Basque peoples. However, a polite, concise response or request for clarification would have cost you nothing and would have helped you retain the moral high ground if indeed he is being tendentious. You could even have taken the post to his talk page if you wanted it off the article.
Secondly, I'm having some difficulty understanding the Hitler-vegans-concentration camps analogy you used, so apologies if I've got it wrong. However, I gather that you aren't happy with my response; I can only advise that I've explained my reading of the situation and you should pursue it an another venue, such as WP:ANI, if you think I'm acting inappropriately or you want other admins to look at Yorkshirian's editing. EyeSerenetalk 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Again I'm finding some of your post obscure, sorry. I really can't tell if you think I'm bigoted, nationalist, anti-nationalist or whatever. That doesn't matter though; what I'm trying for my part to make clear is that although Yorkshirian is sometimes the cause of problems and sometimes the target, because there are often wider issues with the way other editors have acted or reacted, if I was going to apply sanctions I'd have to sanction all sides. This would be potentially unfair and open to gaming; if Yorkshirian gets blocked again it's very unlikely he'd be allowed back. I'm not in any way suggesting that you would consider this, but I suspect there may be some editors that he's upset in the past who might be willing to accept a short block if it meant Yorkshirian's indefblock. I suppose this is the reason you believe I'm cutting him too much slack, although one reason we allow editors a final chance is to see what they do with the rope they're given. Some just go ahead and hang themselves, some walk away from the gallows a reformed person, and some (like Yorkshirian) seem to constantly teeter on the edge. If he's exhausted community patience he should be reblocked, but personally unless it's something egregious I'd like to see a discussion at WP:AN before doing so. However, you're quite right that I haven't spoken to him about the appropriateness of his edit on the Sinn Fein talk page; I'll do so now. EyeSerenetalk 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
My request has nothing directly to do with the poll on Ireland article names. Do you have a prior engagement from which I am keeping you? ~ R.T.G 04:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The ArbCom members who have replied to your request seem to be as baffled as I am to what you are asking them to decide upon. Perhaps if you want them to do something you should add a short paragraph (not more than two or three sentences) stating exactly what it is that you want them to do. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand what a single transferable vote is either Phil, do you? I will tell you. When you have more than 2 candidates, you may have a divided opinion of support for two or more candidates while at the same time having negative support for another. The single transferable vote, in a sense, allows the voter to express their negative vote as well as their positive vote. It is usually considered the most fair way to vote, given that respect, and it is always more interesting giving a broader idea of public opinion for each candidate rather than only expressing each voters no1 best choice. It prevents the idea that you can only express that which you are happy with, which isn't always a representative characteristic in democarcy. Do people concerned with voting not express negative opinions? Of course they do and their voting is able to reflect that, and of course their mediocre support, by grading their preferences rather then just counting the number one the would pick. It is the ultimate opinion poll rather than the simple majority rule chore which is not the definition of democracy, although it is basically another majority rule concept. The article Single transferable vote may explain it a little differently, waffling on about "wasted votes" and such but, for the layman, it is about putting your least-preferred last as well as your most preferred first. From your simple question about the vote on the collaboration project, you can see how long and meandering the debate can be. If you think that User:HighKing is the only editor prepared to enter that debate when naming is reopened for discussion in 2011, think again. I am suggesting that impossibly long debate such as that should be moved to a project space where no other subject is on the agenda, thus preventing any drowning of a talk page. Further, I am asking the Arbitration Committee, when presented a long content dispute like the Ireland naming debate, to invite a body of evidence in the form of an article rather than a series of signed statements. Signed statements are important but a body of evidence outside that should make for easier input from impartial editors and it should make the best point of reference for any dispute. As a collaborative effort, it would often set in stone just what is universally agreed upon before examining the various signed statements. If you do not understand a single word, is there any point in suggesting that I should do things? I think not... ~ R.T.G 14:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"Signed statements are important but a body of evidence outside that should make for easier input from impartial editors and it should make the best point of reference for any dispute." You set up a page like this at one point, didn't you? While I can appreciate the thinking behind it, I don't really see the difference between that and what actually ocurred. Remember at one point, early on in the discussion, editors were asked to make brief points, and others to register agreement or disagreement with those points? We still had editors "disagreeing" with demonstrable facts because the facts didn't support their PoV. Moving such material to another page would result in the same, would it not? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes and at that brief point, Bastun, the findings should have been recorded much the same way as an article is, to provide a point of reference. A debate which produces nothing has a lower value than one which produces something and Wikipedia is all about the reference value. No reason not to reflect that in a disputed content investigation because that is what those disputes are, investigations and evaluations. If they are swamped without an index of reference you are left with an effective secrecy to all who have not become expert in whatever has been going on. I wouldn't support the idea if only one editor got involved, even if it was a supposedly impartial editor. ~ R.T.G 20:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
talking point
G'day RTG - I keep meaning to drop you a note about some of the broo ha ha related to the wikiversity ethics project, but I haven't really had the chance. I'm glad to say however that there's something else I thought you might be interested in which is less controversial, and might be more fun :-) - if you're interested generally in talking through some opinions, ideas, issues etc. etc. but not necessarily directly related to an encyclopedia article, head over to Wikiversity:Talking point and give it a look :-) I'm hoping you might be able to help make it a going concern? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that must be an essential part of learning social and political issues but I don't know if I will be able to edit those pages too much longer anyway. ~ R.T.G 08:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi RTG. In this edit you moved two notes so that they came after or between references. I have undone this as I wanted all the notes first, then the references. Can you say why AWB would do this? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No I have no idea who makes AWB. The list of spell checking is on Wikipedia but it puts templates in order and interwiki links and See also and References etc. I think they agree all that stuff on WP:MOS or related pages and whoever makes AWB just copies that (I hope that's what they do) ~ R.T.G 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I would have hoped you understood what and why AWB did before you used it, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
No I just assumed it was putting them in some sort of alphbetical order or something. If I stopped it doing that I'd have to stop it spellchecking and a load of other stuff. You should get on to them on WP:AWB~ R.T.G 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
hey man, whats with the strange edit on the above list; I understand you used a BOT to make this edit but I think you should understand why the "[[]]" are there in the first place before removing them. Tables can be quite confusing to new editors here. I have left them in to make it easier for people to quickly edit the page and add a producer/reference. This list hardly gets touched by anyone and there have been quite a few IP edits over the last year.--intrainingJack In 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think until you are fully aware of what AWB is doing, you should refrain from using it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Those were not blank entries |''[[Chronique d'un été|Chronicle of a Summer]]''||[[1960 in film|1960]]||[[Edgar Morin]]||[[]]|| . I have seen lists with blank entries. ~ R.T.G 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is a page with blank entries 2009 Polish Figure Skating Championships. I don't know what you were doing. I know what AWB was doing. Why not order the refs the way the machine is programmed..? ~ R.T.G 14:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Note:I made several hundred edits with AWB today. You try me to make 100 edits on pages I never saw before and get only 2 people saying I didn't know what I was doing. ~ R.T.G 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how many pages you edit per day. If you don't actually know what AWB is doing, you shouldn't really be using it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The guy said it is a bug and he will be fixing it in the next release. It is rare people use those tags. It really does do a lot of stuff with tags that you wouldn't have time to check perfectly but I can watch out for this one the next time. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for following it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed thanks for following this up, any chance you would like to help out with this list. Finding realiable sources and adding producers/references can be quite a tedious and time consuming task, if you have time to pop-in from time to time it would be much appreciated.--intrainingJack In 14:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikimedia Ireland
Hi,
A while back you posted a comment at Wikimedia Ireland. Well, it took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest in starting a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". If you're interested, I'd would be great if we could kick off discussion. Maybe, a first step might be to introduce ourselves (anonymously) at the chapter talk page with some ideas about what a chapter could do or a sketch of your interest in founding one ... or even just say restate an interest and say 'hello' :-)
You may also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, RTG. You have new messages at WT:IE. Message added 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Hello, RTG. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page. Message added 01:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambig
I just noticed your user page and thought I should comment as one who was there near the beginning. At first we didn't have disambiguations at all. All senses of a word and even dictionary material were all on one page. Different definitions were separated by a solid line.
Like that. After they fixed things like CamelCase names, slowly widely different meanings were moved to separate pages while, for instance, all Black Rivers stayed on one page because they were all rivers. Eventually a very detailed disambiguation scheme was developed and all subjects were deemed eligible for their own separate pages. But problems still arose: see [1] where the two pages ended up at Piet Pieterszoon Hein and Piet Hein (Denmark)? Rmhermen (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The word "penetrates"
Good evening, RTG. I saw your edit here, and have been wondering why you consider using the word in that sentence immature? You haven't been reverted on it, but "penetrates" is okay to use when talking about sexual acts. It's in a lot of the sources (as "penetration") and there are times when we need to say "vaginal penetration," "anal penetration," etc. JacobTrue (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Enters is, in most cases we might hope, more accurate. Penetration is what a marauder does. Entering is what a guest does. Can you tell me it's the wrong choice without telling me what you are *more used to finding*? Entering is so vastly familiar also, that comparing the two in that way is all but irrelevant. You feel you *need* to say "vaginal/anal penetration" sometimes, but can you explain one case where nothing else is sufficient? Can you reason that the first description we make be of the marauder rather than the guest? I say a lot here for one word but every word has a meaning and, the more artful word is not always the more suitable, while it is almost always more attractive without evaluation. Unless you reason that "enters" be unfamiliar because "penetrates" is familiar (which is an arguement that doesn't make good sense), "enters" is not only the concise choice, but also the accurate one. Penetration has a further meaning which is to push beyond a barrier. Enters just means enters and that is what we are trying to describe where I changed the wording. The entrance to a tunnel rather than the breaking of a barrier. ~ R.T.G 15:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that "enter" is incorrect or less familiar. I'm just saying that "penetrates" is not immature, and it is also just as correct/accurate as "enters." That is the reason it is so commonly used in reliable sources about sexual acts. Not to mention, you can't actually say "vaginal entering/entrance" or "anal entering/entrance" and not have it sound silly in comparison to saying "vaginal penetration" or "anal penetration." For example, we have an article called Sexual penetration. Not Sexual entering or Sexual entrance. So as to your question about sometimes needing to say "vaginal/anal penetration," I'd say yes. How else are we to say it without adding awkward or unneeded words, such as "Most women say that entering the vagina does not cause orgasm"? Or "Most women say that vaginal entrance does not cause orgasm." Not only could "entering/entrance" mean anything in those sentences, such as just entering and not moving, or just the entrance itself in the second example, it doesn't flow right. We could qualify "entrance" with "the penis entering the vagina." But that, too, may also only imply "entering but not moving." And, again, why the unneeded words? Saying "Most women say that vaginal penetration does not cause orgasm" is usually understood to mean sexual intercourse/penetration by the penis, which also signals "actually moving." Although it would be ideal to say "vaginal intercourse" in any of the above examples.
I just don't think that people are goig to analyze "penetrates" vs "enters" in the way that you have upon seeing the terms in a sexual article. Like I said, using "penetrates" is pretty commonplace. JacobTrue (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Mass moves
Would you mind stopping your mass, undiscussed moves until they can be discussed? I have a feeling lots of people disagree with you and it's very annoying to undo moves. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Also... "Of suggests they are now, or have been, somewhere else, right? So wrong then." Are you implying that the United States of America are, or were formerly, somewhere else? --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a given name. America is not the name of the country. A name comes from a thing. The US came from America. The states themseles as individual entities are in America, not from it. Any other examples? ~ R.T.G 16:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"Of" springs forth, which is what the states do from America as a untied entity. The counties of Ireland for example do not outstretch Ireland. ~ R.T.G 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got this definition of "of" from but it's not one I've ever heard. I've always heard of the counties OF Iowa, the provinces OF Canada. Provinces "in" Canada comparatively sounds very strange, like they aren't the provinces that make up Canada, they're just provinces that happen to be sitting in Canada. --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not what you are used to hearing but you say it yourself, they are provinces *in* Canada. Of is used in title like Lawrence of Arabia or United States of America. If it's not your title you are just plain old from or in. ~ R.T.G 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
When you use *of* I cannot tell if you are from or in. It's a matter of description versus aesthetics. Description should always be the foremost conern in such matter here on Wikipedia. ~ R.T.G 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
But they are the provinces that make up Canada. They are not simply provinces that happen to be in Canada. That would work with cities (No one would have a "list of cities of Canada" but they would definitely have one, "List of counties of Ontario") They are fundamental units of it. Like Members OF Parliament, rather than Members IN Parliament. Just please don't continue these movies unless you have some form of consensus, as I can assure you I'm not the only one who would disagree with this unusual interpretation of the English language. --Golbez (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The articles usually do not refer to the entities making up the country, but rather to the history of the smaller entities themselves. I mean, what you say makes sense but it's not the same context as the articles you are talking about. I don't know about the provinces of Canada. What I was focusing on was counties in a country, and in those articles it goes on about the *counties* very much, and the *countries* very little so in that context these articles are about the counties *in* the country rather than the counties *comprising* it. ~ R.T.G 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Quote 1, "The provinces and territories of Canada combine to make up ..." Quote 2, "The counties of Ireland (Irish: contaetha na hÉireann) are sub-national divisions used for the purposes of geographic demarcation and local government." ~ R.T.G 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dungarvan County Council requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PamD 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Town Council
Your nominoation at DYK is oddly arranged. I'm guessing its your first try there. I can help if you like. I'll help by refomatting this on DYK so it looks OK. One problem I can see is that you need a reference for every parangraph. Is this achievable? Hope you perservere Victuallers (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually the one reference is the collected history of records and the more modern stuff, which is only slight at the moment, is all reffed from their own website. I did one about a year or more ago. Nope don't really look at them outside the front page so if you know what to do don't let me hold you back. Or if you can think of a better DYK out of it or anything. Mucho gracias. ~ R.T.G 10:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Did you know nominations for special occasions
Hi: Thanks for pointing out that the instructions at the start of the special occasions holding area were a bit out of date. Someone has now rewritten them but since I see no interaction with you, I thought I'd point out that a section was started here, on the discussion page for the project (the other page is the nominations page). When I started submitting Did You Knows I was unaware of that other talk page, and it's where things like the interpretation of the rules and whether they should be changed get discussed. As to the check marks: they and the other symbols indicate that a reviewer has passed (or still has reservations about) a particular nomination. There's no picking of one over another involved, except when there are multiple "hooks" to choose between. I hope that clarifies it - if not, please feel free to post at that other discussion page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of freeware (2nd nomination) 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 good 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. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simple layering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Propagation (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) 10:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I added another response. -- ToshioYamaguchi 19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK
The author does work for the Oregonian. Also, the original article is here - [2]. I found it by including "five times in just over a mile" in my search. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is wrong. I will get help on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of freeware (3rd nomination) 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. TheChampionMan1234 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got to ask your self, is the subject "Freeware" a valid educational/informational topic? And if it is, is it the sort of topic about which there could be a long list of items? Google Chrome for instance is Freeware is it not? Facebook. Dota 2 is Freeware. Anything software that you are permitted to use legally without paying, and particularly without restriction, well that's freeware and there are lists of it big enough to fill half an internet. :) ~ R.T.G 20:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, RTG/Archives/2020. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Concerning this edit; unless you believe that Unemployment in Cyprus is not a worthy topic for an article, you should not have removed that redlink. Our guideline on the subject is quite clear that redlinks to appropriate (but not-yet-created) articles should be added, and that they should certainly not be removed. There is no guideline or policy about not having redlinks in DYKs; indeed, given the central guideline on redlinks, quite the opposite. I have reinstated the redlink. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@@J Milburn: I thought they used to frown on red links at DYK. Otherwise, sure, my mistake. The others however (there were 3 or 4 red links) were definitely not content. ~ R.T.G 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No redlinks can be included in the hook, but that's just because there's a "no redlinks on the MP" norm. The DYK guidelines have got no business demanding things in articles contrary to our actual guidelines, which is what a "keep redlinks to a minimum" policy would be. I'm also not convinced that the other red links were inappropriate; are "persistent poverty", "severe material deprivation" and "at-risk-of-poverty rate" specific concepts employed in academic/policy literature? I don't know the poverty literature particularly well, though I'd certainly trust Piotrus to be aware of the links he's making. J Milburn (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it needed some tidying and formatting so I just did it according to the way I thought it should look and read best. There was no descriptions of the poverty so emphasising the severity with links would have a negative effect on the prose. "at-risk-of-poverty rate" is obviously clumsy and replaceable by synonymous terms and the point of mentioning persistent poverty was that it was not relevant to the topic so red linking it didn't seem appropriate. So I believe I was correct or had the room for the decision based on preference. ~ R.T.G 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And the reason I suggested writing employment before unemployment just seems to follow, that it would be easier and on such a small scale that unemployment would likely begin as a section of that, so that's the whole rationale. ~ R.T.G 23:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@J Milburn:I would say persistent poverty and material deprivation are indeed academic topics while at-risk-of-poverty is just common terminology along the lines of poverty risk. If you think the first two should remain, I won't challenge you at re-adding them. But trust wasn't the issue, and I'd be unlikely to take that onboard to a certain extent in this context unless I felt some personal familiarity with the work of said editor. ~ R.T.G 23:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And even then I do not think that trust was an issue there. ~ R.T.G 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And I'm doing some waffling about it but I'm sort of re-learning about DYK and that doesn't mean I'll be there a lot but it is learning none the less ~ R.T.G 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The phrase was "at-risk-of-poverty rate". If this is a codified measure used/endorsed by academics/key agencies, then it, too, is worthy of a redlink. I think there certainly is a trust issue, here- unless you've done a bit of research on the topic yourself, you're saying "I don't know for sure, but I don't trust the editor who has written this to make a sensible judgement about what is and is not a worthwhile link". I'm not trying to be judgmental, here, I'm just hoping to get you thinking about redlink removal, which seems to be unthinking and automatic in some people. That's a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think that it is an error, just correct it. But, it is one of a set of terms indicating the same thing, and it is the clumsy-most-of-all one. In Deutsche, it is proper grammar for large strings of words to be written as the one. I think you will find this phrase most commonly related to governmental rhetoric of the EU. Poverty risk, on its own, seems the correct header for this language, while the rate of poverty risk is a section of that topic. I think that's about right. The guides say the most common title rather than the most common term of reference. "at-risk-of-poverty rate" brings in three times the search hits of "Poverty risk" but isn't that because the citation and reference to the parent topic is threefold? Yeah okay, maybe that's not the debate you were looking for. The guides say to minimise red linkage and to keep it in direct relevance. I de-linked them all. ~ R.T.G 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
"The guides say to minimise red linkage"- No they don't. That's the point. Please familiarise yourself with WP:REDLINK. This isn't really about the poverty issues, it's about redlinking. Redlinks are not a bad thing.J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It does actually say on the second sentence and paragraph, "Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide." I'm actually quite inclusionary when it relates to topical matter. This quoted sentence says to me that the best ordering would be a list in the see also with red linkage there, and that seems to be a well rounded approach. I agree that they are not a bad thing, but their positioning and composition has nothing to do with that. If the intention was encouragement, it could be commonplace to have a link in the see also to supporting articles which haven't been written, listed. ~ R.T.G 15:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Do not overlink- don't feel the need to link to the same term over and over in the same article, or where a link would not be useful. Basically, do not link when you wouldn't link a bluelink. I'm all for including appropriate redlinks in see also sections (though I suspect some would claim that it's counterintuitive, because you can't also see an article when there isn't one written) but there's no guideline which says they should be kept there. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello RTG -- I see you undid my edits to the Plantagenet page, removing the term "feudal", which (I contend) is widely considered obsolete among professional medievalists. I'm happy to provide references, but I'm not clear on how to provide a reference to validate something that I removed. By definition, there is nothing left to footnote :-) Or are you suggesting I provide additional attribution on the talk page for the article? I don't do a lot of Wikipedia editing, so not sure what is recommended here. The article itself doesn't seem to have a talk page. Slane00 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Slane00:I appreciate you feel that way, and I actually do not have an opinion if you are correct or not, but to define the usage of such a widespread word, you really will need to consult the community. Just saying you are really sure will not provide the basis for such a change. The reasons should be obvious. Changes like that are held over the whole site, not just one article... Check out the WP:MOS~ R.T.G 12:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@RTG:Hi, my question is simply how you recommend I proceed. Should I open a discussion on the talk page for the Plantagenet article, which doesn't seem to exist? Just not sure what you recommend as a next step. I'm very happy to have a citation-based discussion about this, I'm just not sure where. Slane00 (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Slane00: Start it on the talk page, or the talk page of the wikiproject listed at the top of the talk page. But be warned as a new editor, shouting your piece will not get you anywhere, even if your changes you suggest are correct. People who come here to write and discuss get listened to. People who come here to scrawl and vandalise get blocked. (it will be frustrating if no one listens to you, just leave it for some time later) ~ R.T.G 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
And just to note, if the response from the talk pages is slight, try WP:Village pump or WP:RD/Humanities. ~ R.T.G 12:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal c/e request
Hi RTG, I'm sorry I was a little curt on the GOCE talk page; I didn't notice you were asking for a copy-edit here. We don't normally c/e pages in user space, but you can always ask again if your proposal is accepted—there's no point us working on a rejected proposal! Please be clear that you're asking for the text to be polished. FWIW I didn't think you were canvassing, just posting in the wrong venue. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Not that I saw. If nobody points these things out, or you refuse to understand them, you don't pick up ten percent of them. I wasn't asking for a copy edit exactly, but I wasn't not asking for one if that makes any sense. I read a lot of disputes before and it just seemed to follow that any sort of identifier to an attacking statement was a personal affront.. but it didn't exactly say that in NPA.. So, if you've got some edits for it with that in mind... ~ R.T.G 08:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility 1 (b): "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities" covers your proposal. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
One word across the whole page and then, one word across the NPA page too... Does that not make it squeak a bit? ~ R.T.G 08:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your use of "squeak", but the text is there even though some may chose not to see it. You could discuss this on those policies' talk pages and perhaps rewrite them. I think the writing there could do with being clarifed and the waffle removed. Anyway it still makes your proposal superfluous, but you could leave it as an essay in your user space. I'm sure you'd gain some support for it at the Pump. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I mean it is poorly cared for in that respect. If you do not oil a wheel or a hinge it starts to squeak. ~ R.T.G 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Knockeen Portal Tomb
Hello! Your submission of Knockeen Portal Tomb at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ways to improve Deborah Luster
Hi, I'm Kmccook. RTG, thanks for creating Deborah Luster!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. To meet notability criteria this page needs to be expanded. Looking at your sources DL looks notable to me but there is insufficient development of the article. Please expand.
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. Kmccook (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I am now sitting up a bit late and trying to put enough into this for a DYK. I probably won't fully complete the article but she is notable and interesting and I'll definitely make a DYK out of it, cheers thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 03:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Deborah Luster (lowres unfree).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Deborah Luster (lowres unfree).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deborah Luster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. 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) 09:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed it, and I would use the template but when I tried to (as you may have seen) it didn't work. So I could use your feedback on the DYK page. Jinkinsontalk to me 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I need a reviewer with humour. Think youre the right one. Are you? Serten (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ha, yes funny one :). The translations have me mystified however. Usually Google comes up with perfect sentences from dutch or deutcshe, but if it is not completed for a while we can go to WikiProject Germany and half them will probably speak fluently, ~ R.T.G 08:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a short translation, and right, Google seams to leave out some words at the moment. I am a German myself btw., so lets not start goosestepping. Serten (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
But it helps in the cold weather... ~ R.T.G 08:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Support request to the usual suspects is ongoing. 'We always will have Paris'. Serten (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunum (Ireland), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rathdrum and Britons. 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) 09:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
More specifically, it's the rate at which variation in the phase velocity is transferred, synonymous with wave propagation. It's interesting thinking about phase propagation and molecular gyroscopes together. But I'm sure that's not a content issue.
I'm not doing an actual doctoral thesis, I shouldn't really post stuff like that. 01:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heather Stewart-Whyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi-I have a modest request to make concerning the article about Debbie Rodella and the DYK nomination; please do not included myself in the nomination of the article for DYK. I added the section about Debbie Rodella's education and job history to bring an balance to the article that there is life outside of politics. I would feel very uncomfortable if I would be included in the DYK nomination. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Debbie Rodella
Hello! Your submission of Debbie Rodella at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see new note on DYK nomination page. This may be a lost cause. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You made this completely unwarranted attack on me days after I left you the above message concerning your behavior. Stop using any thread about me to air your completely incorrect interpretations of policies and demand I be punished. I've requested that this be formally instituted at ANI as per the link above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wind power in the Republic of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leitrim. 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) 15:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Philae
Your deletion and comment was incredibly offensive and inappropriate referring to inspiration as "nonsense" seems stupid.
Hi, could you add something to show that inspirational relationship? Otherwise, all you did was add a link to a book and a quick search did not reveal any connection. Also, your edit previous to that edit was to add White trash to the article hot rod. Now, let me tell you something about incredibly offensive starting with accusing people of being likely vandals. sorry about that. And please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~ and you will be able to tell where your comments end and mine begin... ~ R.T.G 17:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
November 17
Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. If you had bothered to look at the history of the talk page or the user, you would have noticed that he has been persistently spamming talk pages with commentary of he type I deleted. The validity of the comments are irrelevant. They are not a discussion of anything in the article, and hence not valid addition to talk pages. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Marathon:Deleting comments is only okay if they are an obvious offense: vandalism, open attack, and banned editors contribs. (it's in the policies and guidelines WP:TALK) Basically, the editor has to stop of their own volition if they are not doing the correct thing or be confronted by those empowered to make stops. Personally, though the effort may not be to standard, it seems a valid and good faith attempt so I'd have explained or left it to someone who would explain. If you aren't sure how you should proceed in a situation, ask for advice somewhere like WP:Help or WP:Administrators noticeboard because this situation is held by all at some point on WP and usually someone will know how to guide you. Consider, if you maintain that attitude, you are less likely to get heated in a disagreement than if you start deleting each other. ~ R.T.G 23:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerard Mannix Flynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dundrum. 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) 11:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Per this discussion RTG and Ryulong are indefinitely banned from interacting with or commenting on one another. Any appeal of this interaction ban should be made to the community via WP:ANI where it was enacted Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EffiaSoft 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. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MYSTERYSOURCE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MYSTERYSOURCE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trophic species, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joel Cohen. 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) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trade & Industry. Since you had some involvement with the Trade & Industry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, RTG. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Constitution of ireland. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Constitution of ireland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, RTG. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, RTG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 revert another closure attempt of your proposal, I will block you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Of my attempt to have a discussion in the site discussion area. ~ R.T.G 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The community consensus is clearly that the discussion is not worthwhile, and you cannot force people to listen to you. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, and failing to listen and "get the point" - that your comments are more suited to an essay than a proposal - is disruptive editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Force people to listen to me? Don't leave any more text here. I don't know what you want, and it obviously has nothing to do with the content of my suggestion. ~ R.T.G 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
He isn't discussing the topic I was trying to discuss. What you are all saying is basically don't contribute, and then you are saying, if you do you'll get blocked, like what you are doing isn't a de facto block. I get to make suggestions and Village Pump in the same manner as anybody else, ~ R.T.G 15:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
RTG, no one is saying you cannot make proposals. What we are trying to explain is that there are better ways of going about undoing a closure. I would try calmly discussing with the closing admin or on the Village Pump's talk page. Heading straight to AN/I is probably not the best way to go about it. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 15:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Nobody has been trying to explain anything to me as regards this proposal I tried to make. I was beset only, by suggestions not to make the proposal. I've done this before. I am not lost. Help from an administrator is exactly what the closing administrator below suggests I should do, only that it should be him, who can ensure censorship. The last person I need help from with this proposal right now is anyone who was bold at preventing it's very proposal for a start, thank you. ~ R.T.G 15:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
ANI
Hi RTG, I've closed your thread over at ANI[3],
As I said over there you need to take a step away, calm down for a while and then come back when you're in a better mood - We all get angry on here myself included however getting angry at ANI and demanding things really won't help you in the long run,
You're more than welcome to post to any board of your choosing however if it gets closed there's always a reason for it and it should never be reopened unless there's a a very good reason for doing so,
You're on very thin ice now and the WP:ROPE will only go so far so as I said take the last bit of ROPE you have left and take a step back for a while,
Forget everything that's happened and just edit articles you enjoy or like :),
If you need help or have any questions I'm only 2 clicks away and would be happy to help :),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not exhibited any form of lack of calmness. You are suggesting anger to me. You are baseless and accusatory in that. "There's always a reason for it." Closed to discussion. "You're on very thin ice." I haven't been incivil to anyone. It is safe to say you wish nothing of helping me and are trying your utmost to be provocative. ~ R.T.G 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not exhibited any form of lack of calmness. You are suggesting anger to me. You are baseless and accusatory. "There's always a reason for it." Closed to discussion. "You're on very thin ice." I haven't been incivil to anyone. It is safe to say you wish nothing of helping me and are trying your utmost to be provocative. ~ R.T.G 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Not at all - The communities patience only goes so far and given the disruption you've caused the communities (and my) patience is wearing rather thin now, Like I said take a step away, forget all of the VPP and ANI crap, And return in a few hours time,
If you have any issues or questions I'd be happy to help, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 15:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You are approaching me. There is not a snowballs chance in hell I'll follow a block from you to Village Pump without breaching civility or other genuine breach or threat to the site. You have shown zero patience for me and every comment you have made has detailed that as a fact. What are you trying to achieve? ~ R.T.G 15:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"What are you trying to achieve?" - I'm trying to stop yourself getting blocked that's what I'm trying to achieve,
Again for the umpteenth time take a step a way and come back in a few hours when you're more calm,
And when I say, "Follow a block" I mean your defacto block that this thing is revolving around. I was only making a proposal. The format was, a paragraph. You really have left me behind in your intentions. I can only assume bad faith. No real explanation has been given to me. I am familiar with the site. I've edited guidelines. You have no need to bother me. You have no suggestions which are not personal, that I am causing bother. That constitutes a personal attack. You are not simply wielding the power here and again, you stepped in, do what you will. If I cannot make a proposal and edit my own talk page, when I am not breaching civility or threatening the site. I'm not wrong. If that makes you suffer, you should avoid me entirely, not based on your input, based on mine. Yawn. ~ R.T.G 16:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I will attempt to close by pointing out, if you wish to block me when I have not committed block worthy actions, the onus is on me to encourage you. ~ R.T.G 16:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
[4] I'm just noting this. You can freak out if you like, but you already knew that. ~ R.T.G 16:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay. You are not an administrator. Do not interfere with my talk page comments by either closing my requests in short order, threatening me, or deleing my talk page comments based on behaving like, posing as, an administrator exercising their powers. ~ R.T.G 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)
}}
Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot, Alls you had to do was shut up and walk away but you couldn't even do that, I tried I really did. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Also I've reverted your hiding of my comments here - You're more than welcome to close but certainly not hide calling my actions "deceptive" - If you wasn't such a plank you would've seen I was trying to help you. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Rouge, rouge, vandal. ~ R.T.G 17:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
In your manner I believed you were an uninvolved individual, possibly an administrator, which was what I was requesting when you came along and intervened. I was deceived. I thought you were an administrator. ~ R.T.G 08:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi RTG, I'm sorry if I gave that impression - I'm not an administrator,
Inregards to "deceiving" you I can see where you're coming from - I personally don't think I acted like an administrator but I can see where you're coming from,
My goal here was simply to try and save you from being blocked and essentially kicked off the project, Despite what Floquenbeam says I genuinely wasn't trying to poke you or stir the pot in any way although I do agree my message could've been much more friendlier,
Sometimes telling someone to take a step away helps (it's helped me) and so I assumed it would've helped you but looking back on it now what helps me may not help everyone else and I do agree with Floq maybe saying nothing would've been better instead of the above post,
Anyway I'm sorry If I've made things 10000x worse it certainly wasn't my intention,
I wish you all the best here and I hope one day we can edit together again in much better circumstances :),
Take care, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
February 2019
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Three reverts does not constitute an edit war. ~ R.T.G 15:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What part of
"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but itis nota definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." ( WP:EDITWAR )
Are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand this perfectly. I have not made more than 3 reverts to that page. What part don't you understand? ~ R.T.G 16:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are given wide latitude regarding adding humorous images to their talk pages, but the "Are we there yet?" image on your talk page stays on the page when you scroll and hides the text underneath it. Please convert it to a normal image that doesn't cover any of the text. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Please give me a chance to type. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked for a short while
RTG, I've had to block your account for a day. Regardless of whether you think the closes of your threads were valid, edit warring cannot possibly be the correct solution, and your interactions with a half a dozen other editors have devolved into pointlessness. It also seems clear to me that you will not stop fighting with everyone if I don't block you for a short time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
[5] my fourth revrt was to protect my own talk page comments from alteration. I'll search up the unblock template. I've threatened nothing. Only I have been threatened. ~ R.T.G 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My fourth revert was to protect my own talk page comments from alteration. I'll search up the unblock template. I've threatened nothing. Only I have been threatened. Nothing has been threatened by me today except rouge behaviour at my expense. I requested ANI help. I was further rouge attacked at length. I reverted to protect my talk page comments. Other editors are trying to destroy my attempts to ask for help. A block was not necessary. No content under threat. Load of silly nonsense. No admin even chimed in.
Decline reason:
The behaviour of others does not excuse your own disruptive behaviour today, and it's regrettably quite clear from the discussion below that you're intending to continue if this block is lifted. The request is thus declined. Please take Floquenbeam's generous advice to think about what's happened today and how your own actions have contributed to the mess. When you come back tomorrow, if you wish to raise an issue about editing at the village pump, please do so without attacking other editors or alleging a grand conspiracy against you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
My reason for unblock is not showing up in the template though the text is there. My fourth revert was to protect my own talk page comments from alteration. I'll search up the unblock template. I've threatened nothing. Only I have been threatened. Nothing has been threatened by me today except rouge behaviour at my expense. You didn't have to block nothing. ~ R.T.G 17:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC). ~ R.T.G 17:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
RTG, "protect my own talk page comments from alteration" is not one of the exceptions to the edit warring policy. You are not solely to blame for this spiralling out of control, but when 3 separate people close one of your threads, and (I think) 4 separate people close another one, you have to sit back and think for a minute "am I approaching this the wrong way"? I think it might be more productive to temporarily remove the unblock template, and discuss this with me first; as it stands, the odds of being unblocked are about 0.01%. However, if you don't want to discuss this with me, let me know and I won't post here again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam:90 minutes after I posted a proposal it became the subject of rouge attacks. I have been thinking about it. That's why I wanted to make a proposal. I am quite clear. I have not breached civility and threatened no part of the site. The only thing at question here is my ability to control my own suggestions and comments. If you'll check thoroughly, you'll find I have been beset by others who appear unable to control themselves. Wishing won't change that to be me, even if I make no sense at all, ~ R.T.G 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I am accepting now that genuine admins are involved not to pull your strings. I am explicitly aware of the conduct rules including 3RR etc. There is no need to block me. I should be able to respond. I have not breached CIVIL or threatened any part of the site. I have been beset. Release me per favor, ~ R.T.G 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You can ublock me your self if you'd like. I was left out in the open for some time. It was natural for me to revert the deletion and obstruction of my comments, which were not incivil or anything else. Check. Whatever. ~ R.T.G 17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw how things were handled by other people. They could have been handled better by almost everyone. I tend to agree that threads are often closed too quickly. However, if tons of other people disagree, I can't solve that problem by edit warring until I get my way. I haven't blocked you for breaching civility, nor threatening any part of the site. I've blocked you for edit warring. It seems pretty clear to me, for example, that if unblocked right now, you will revert the close at the village pump again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it unusual to block before warning, upon the first contravention of 3RR? This was not a flurry of disagreements. It was a flurry of interfering with my requests, in its entirety, by people who have been extremely careful not to respond to the requests. To deny there were requests. To pose as figures of authority closing my ability to make requests.. "Handled" you said. I do not think that describes what has been occurring. ~ R.T.G 18:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to continue talking, please don't say something we both know is obviously untrue, I presume for rhetorical effect. This was not a block with no warning. Guy Macon warned you about edit warring, above. You replied and assured him you knew everything about the edit warring policy. You then continued to edit war several times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon did not warn me. Guy Macon proceeded to block my contributions himself. And you are restricting me for one +revert to protect my own comments. If none of my side has bearing, and all of the other side has bearing, that's bias, at my expense. It's not fair, I have threatened nothing, put my self out in good faith, and attacks against me are supported. That's wrong. ~ R.T.G 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That's wrong. There is no need to "continue talking". Do I seem unclear or out of control? ~ R.T.G 18:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you seem to be both of those things. But if there is no need to continue talking, I'll leave you alone. Goodbye and good luck. But please be aware that if you start this up again tomorrow after your block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely the very first time you revert anything on either of those threads again, with no further warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry User:Floquenbeam, you are not providing basis for that accusation, except that the rouge attackers really, really, said so. It is important to back up accusations with diffs, for real. The only "out of control" was the attempt to control the text and presentation of my own requests. @Floquenbeam:} ~ R.T.G 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I need to edit my comment at the 3RR noticeboard. It says closure templates were applied after 90 minutes. But it may appear to suggest that there was some sort of debate war until that time. The 90 minute closure was the first response. VPP isn't always such a fast moving place. Unblock me please, thank you. ~ R.T.G 18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor.
The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter
From you to me, noted with the endlessly repeated request to provide diffs to this supposed anger I have expressed. And now bullying? You feel bullied? And you can supply diffs to that effect?
"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people.
"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."
-Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, p 149
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I will just echo the word evil, shot at me, in relation to my attempt to make a proposal at Village Pump. ~ R.T.G 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I've got nothing against you. I don't believe we've ever interacted before. I watchlist the Village Pump and saw people edit warring over a closure. The discussion didn't seem productive, and was in the wrong place besides. When such discussion seems unproductive on its face, closing them is a way to prevent unnecessary bickering when we could be doing something productive instead. Even if you were right, being right isn't an exception to edit warring. If it was, we'd have edit wars all over the place, because we've got lots of people who think they're right. Learning to drop the stick early and often is a skill on Wikipedia. I often drop the stick even when I think I can win, because I don't want to argue about something for three weeks in order to actually win.
In all sincerity, if I can ever be of any help, feel free to stop by my talk page. But if you want help, you have to be willing to take helpful advice. GMGtalk 22:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry GMG, but you opened saying that anything which has to be argued about for weeks and drop a stick... I cannot drop a stick wielded against me without considerable effort. I appreciate your apparent good faith, but you still seem to have eyes only for me in this incident. Go on, embarrass me. Make me worse. It is the order of the day on the other end of the spectrum. If rouge is god, liberalis is sure to fall next. Yes. Rouge is not as well paid as you might suspect, but he's free as anything. Anything. ~ R.T.G 06:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about Green Man Go. So far, those offering help have joined fighting. I have, in miserable recital, not broken any codes except a single revert over the limit. Why have you chimed in? You haven't specified your "help" offered. It is a token for your self. ~ R.T.G 07:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You've already helped, at the village pump by refusing to let me control my own comment. What sort of edit war was this? A content dispute? ~ R.T.G 07:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Longicrusavus, should be left here on the talk page where I put it and not touched by anyone who doesn't understand my action putting it here. Or maybe not...
There are many hues of rouge editors, but they can always be identified by their uncanny ability to spell "rogue".
When rouge is GOD, dissent requires approval. How would you like that? How would you feel after that? ~ R.T.G 16:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Notice the railing erected around the horse. He is probably waiting for someone to come with a cart and bring him home with the horse. He is probably going to eat it. BLUE.
It was my summary, moral of the story, written a few minutes after the debate had been closed. Do I feel, as though I am being followed? ~ R.T.G 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It says, "after that" and everything. (it doesn't really say "everything" but it seemed an appropriate turn of phrase). Is everything okay then? ~ R.T.G 15:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You see I catch on. Do you see where I asked if I was being followed, which, Guy anyway, would never utter except in anger. Well see when I went to go and do my own thing again I realised, maybe you two think I am following you, and believe something I have done has coincided with something you have done. I can assure you something about polarisation. I don't need that. This feels personal in its entirety, no offense. ~ R.T.G 15:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
RTG, I'm not saying your concerns are not justified, but I personally think you are a good editor and improve the project. I was just curious about it because a lot of your posts on here are cryptic to me. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
RTG, I should clarify I am by no means here to provoke you nor accuse you of harassment. I just don't get what things like this mean. I will leave you alone, however. Thank you for your contributions thus far to the Project! :D ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 15:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I have a good memory and good cognition, but the cognition is often slow. However, I think the idea that rouge (not rogue) in authority threatens the opportunity for dissent, to be a very clear statement, though it may not have intended to pave the road that way. I would assume that statement to reflect on me as much as anyone. The horse was for Mr Macon. It is directly from my mind. He has railed me in, and is now waiting for the cart perhaps. Thanks for the compliment. Don't worry I know my contribs are modest. But I find it hard to let go of the idea that each gets at least a say, a chance to put forward an idea. Another thing that comes up not just with rouge, is that ideas are only put forth by the worthy. But the worthy are particularly busy, and you find some stuff just sits there waiting for a hero when it doesn't need one. Something about "the land that needs heroes" versus "the land that has them" ~ R.T.G 16:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually Mr Macon mentioned the horse in edit summary. So I thought it appropriate to bring the horse into the discussion :D~ R.T.G 16:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
WOOPS - Sorry about accidentally archiving a thread on here.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Convoy UGS-40, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@113.210.56.203: Google books says 3,000+ hits starting with Billboard, Virgin, and some Encyclopaedia of Music. A former director of it died last year, and they named a nature reserve after her in Hampstead [6]~ R.T.G 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created, Corporal Jackie, does not have enough reliable sources as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for main-space, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ∯WBGconverse 14:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Well I suppose I've covered that now. I thought this would happen before anyone showed an interest. ~ R.T.G 19:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Encyclopedias for Deletion: the European Union has proposed legislation which would interfere with the ability of Wikipedia to continue on the internet. Please act today: https://saveyourinternet.eu/act/ Thank you.
The Epoch (reference date) page
I saw the edits you made and couldn't help but notice you removed the entire section on epochs in computing. Were you planning to move that material somewhere else? Arcorann (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Arcorann:I missed that! So busy trying to consider the cosmology one. I'm working on it now, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Arcorann:After much fiddling, in case you were waiting, all done as far as links and disabiguation etc, cheers ~ R.T.G 02:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I changed the redirect destination and explained the change in my edit summary. Feel free to leave me a message if you believe my change was incorrect.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|PCN02WPS}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Understandable o/ ~ R.T.G 20:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Coherent
Hi, after our spat at WP:BN I have been reading some of your other contributions. As someone notes further up this page, you are incoherent most of the time. Bearing in mind my most commonly edited topic area, that really is saying something. There may be a reason for it but it isn't helpful and probably explains why most people, including on Jimbo's talk page, are ignoring what you say. Streams of consciousness might occasionally work among a group of people on a high or in something like Ulysses but they're just gibberish here. I suspect there are nuggets of good thought in there somewhere but I think you need to work on getting them across to people. Hopefully, you can. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
What on Earth is this attack trying to say? That I am an incoherent bureaucrat? I think I was very direct and reasonable with you. Attack is not an acceptable form of response to challenge. I've no interest in hurting you or stopping you, but you made a point, and I disputed it. You attacked, and I told you so, just as I have here. I am incoherent most of the time? I speak English buddy. If you want to respond to me about politics, you'll have to come right down off the pegs and ask me which bit you were stuck on or just consider, it wasn't that important. ~ R.T.G 22:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
See, when I say you are on pegs, you tried to peg me right there before you invited a response. See, when I said you were on the pegs, rather than using them, I am saying that on that peg-the-enemy buzz, you are "high" right there. See more if you like. But I'm not asking you to. However, I don't appreciate responding to obvious, direct, unnecessary, personal, attack. That's a "stream of consciousness" right there. Was it a voyage for you? Well, enjoy your trip then. ~ R.T.G 22:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, while RTG certainly has a... unique.. style of prose, I would say that I am rather partial to it. I find the style to be highly impactful as utilized because it's internally consistent. You can't skip what RTG is saying, or you'll miss out on what they are about to say next. I certainly never have been disappointed in ability to communicate what they are trying to get across-- only in my ability to understand their artful use of language. That's just my two cents. (talk page stalker) ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm down hard on Sitush here but they did believe I was attacking them for being direct and challenging to their claims. I may appear aggressive some times but it is generally in response to aggressiveness or personal attacks, which often stems from simple refusal to reason or assume good faith. Thanks for the camaraderie, Matt, I mean well so, I'm sorry that I don't operate for approval but what happens to an article that waits for an expert. The experts see the gap, and go off and write books until an editor comes along and references them, often years later, no bad intended o/ ~ R.T.G 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Matthew, you have said on this very page within the last fortnight that you do not often understand RTG. Other people have said the same. Communication is key to collaboration, and this is intended to be a collaborative project.
I don't give a toss about aggression: there is nothing RTG can say that I haven't heard here before, with bells on, because I operate mostly in one of the more toxic areas. Hence I had to move house on police advice at one stage, the WMF had to spend money sorting things out etc - it is all well documented if you dig around. That RTG got completely the wrong end of the stick in the recent discussion to which we have all been parties is just one of those things but that no-one could even understand them is more of a problem. Competence is required and if they cannot communicate with a reasonable degree of clarity then they're going to end up being indefinitely blocked, even if their thoughts may have been valid and precisely because no-one could see that they were valid. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you comparing me to a real world threat on your safety in an attempt to prevent me adding to discussion on the site? That's a really serious proposition. I require no approval from you in any of the matters you have disapproved so far. Are you afraid I have made too much disturbance to Jimbo Wales talk page? And in the same breath you demand of others to accept your dis-appraisal of him to support your views across the same argument. You keep referring to my thoughts, ~ R.T.G 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stay off of my talk page.
Please stay off of my talk page. You are not welcome there. Please be aware that I have blocked all notifications from you and that pinging me or putting my username in a talk page post will do nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I must inform you when I intend to report 3RR, thank you. Pinging you or putting your name in a talk page post? ~ R.T.G 19:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) When you have filed a report and are required by policy to notify Guy Macon, then do so. Otherwise, respect his request not to post on his talk page, per WP:NOBAN. That's pretty simple. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, are you ok with me adding myself as co-nom/author, as I've added a lot? A good gap to fill, & we now have View of Venice. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure you've written the whole article now, and I wasn't going to go much past start-class with it. It was pretty much done when you found it. I started it to show someone that a started article would attract more attention than a redlink and lo. It'll need a better hook, cheers o/ ~ R.T.G 19:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
DS notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
It's not permissible to continue making unprovable, strange accusations in this topic area (it's not permissible at all, but in a topic covered by discretionary sanctions it can lead to a swift block or topic ban). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure "unprove" them. ~ R.T.G 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Not interested, thanks. ~ R.T.G 13:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Your statement at arbitration
Hi, I'm GoldenRing, one of the clerks for the arbitration committee. You statement at the current case request is over double the nominal 500-word limit for those not listed as a party to a case. While we don't rigorously enforce the word limit, a statement of this length does risk being summarily pruned or (worse, from your point of view) ignored. Could you please refactor / trim it down to something near the limit? GoldenRing (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Done, thank you o/ ~ R.T.G 20:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, please see the instructions at the top of that page: "Don't remove requests from this page (for any reason) unless you are an arbitrator or clerk." You are not permitted to remove yourself as a party once you have been named as one. If ArbCom takes the case and declares you not a party, then are not a party. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of View of Venice at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of 1 the Road
Hello! Your submission of 1 the Road at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hole you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WelpThatWorked -- WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Hole you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hole for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WelpThatWorked -- WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of 1 the Road at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We need to see some action within the next seven days if you wish this nomination to continue. I hope you can do something by then. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Historical significance) has been reviewed!
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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peridole. Since you had some involvement with the Peridole redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This is your fair warning. I know you are dissatisfied with the responses you got but you have got to accept that you will get no more. This is not tag teaming as I have not in any way asked JBL to revert you. Instead of wikilawyering here, take a break. You can remove this notice but any further edits against the consensus at RDMA are crossing into blockable territory.—Jasper Deng(talk) 15:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stay off my talk page. WP:OWNTALK allows me to remove your comments freely.--Jasper Deng(talk) 23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
You have tag-teamed and owned the page. When I see you open this box toward another, I am going to latch it onto your belt. We are not short of people who understand maths. We are short of people who can explain them. The maths articles do not explain their topics. You represent a clique who rejects its purpose. ~ R.T.G 04:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh and I thought I had noted here: WP:TAGTEAM. This was a tag team event on a talk page. This was not a content dispute. This was a dispute about how short my intellectual skirt is, for a ref desk like this.
This is not a dispute about an off topic discussion. This is about an editor who could not answer a question, archiving the asking of that question, without pause during discussion. It is a recurring theme in the wiki today while we go through a first phase period where many perceive the site as finished, or handle the site, as though it is already finished. ~ R.T.G 05:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Re [7]: I can't believe I am actually writing this due to a reference desk question, but if you do not drop this, I will have no choice but to ask for admin intervention at WP:ANI, and that would likely include a request for a block of you. I'm giving you one more chance to knock it off. Tag-teaming is an essay, not a policy, and in any case, your tu quoque argument utterly fails to address the fact that consensus (including from an uninvolved admin, User:Jayron32), is against you on this. Yes, this isn't a content dispute, but all the same, WP:STICK applies. You also have been quite rude and incivil, with substantial WP:SHOUTing (excessive boldening in particular). Instead of WP:casting aspersions of tag-teaming or wikilawyering (which you have no evidence for), you should take a step back, address your behavior, and concede that you have more productive things to do. You are also mistaken, and also not mistaken, that I could not answer your question. I can answer the question as written, as a learned mathematician with a degree in it from a prestigious institution. What I cannot answer, and which no one else can answer, is what you actually meant by that question, since no one knows what that actually is because you have been much too vague and lacking in mathematical rigor. And when I say "no one", I mean several experienced mathematicians and other regulars of the math reference desk. You have no right or prerogative to act as if your point must be accepted when everyone else rejects it. I cannot tell what you are trying to accomplish here, but your comments on this matter have been disruptive from the moment I (rightfully) closed the (dead-end) conversation. You are free to ask somewhere else like Stack Exchange or other forums, but you have no entitlement to any further replies here.--Jasper Deng(talk) 12:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Jasper Deng, you are the one with the stick here. You are the one following me around in fear. I'm sorry you feel that way. "Excessive boldening"? It seems to me like you are still joking. Stack Exchange? I've been asking questions of the ref desks for, what some of us call, donkeys years. Steve Baker once got upset with me, but of course I was trying to postulate possible universes which do not conform to the standard model. I am pretty sure there was one other incident over those ten years where I asked a question that went on and on, and people complained about it. Maybe that's the one. Let's see from my edit count where that leaves us... the top nine Wikipedia namespace pages I have edited are, Village Pump, Help Desk, Arbitration Cases, and... 1, 2, 3, 4 ref desks... I'm not sure what you think you've found. I say keep looking. That's what I do, and I'm smart, compared to average... ~ R.T.G 16:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Since I was summoned with a ping, I will make only one brief statement. I am either on anyone's side, nor am I against anyone. I only note that there's no reasonable way the current discussion can move forward for whatever reason, and because of that, it makes sense to close it down. I'll leave it to others to assign blame. I'm not particularly interested in doing that. --Jayron32 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is as a result of you reinserting your addition to the tag teaming essay.--Jasper Deng(talk) 14:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
An attempt to answer your RD question
Writing here since the RD question is closed.
Your question didn't get a satisfactory answer because you posed a conceptual question, and got a conceptual answer but expected a strict, rigorous one. The problem being that in mathematics "is" has a far more narrow sense than in real life (it means something like "is categorically"). It doesn't describe "is an element of", "belongs to same set as", "is conceptually similar", nor all other ways that a sentence can make sense and carry truth and meaning without being mathematically rigorous. So, when you say "is the Euclidean plane the concept of two dimensional space", the rigorous answer is no. One of many reasons being that "two-dimensional space" is ambiguous. Like do you mean R2? Rigorously, the sentence "Euclidean plane is (the concept of) R2" is false, so the question of whether this or that is true wouldn't even make sense. (It unfortunately doesn't help that some of the Wikipedia articles you link also make concessions to human language to be readable. Mathematics can be as florid as you like. See for example Principia Mathematica's legendary 1+1=2 proof, and the fact that 20 years later Gödel's theorem's consequences on that were basically: life is not even that "easy".)
So when you get non-rigorous answers like "in Non-Euclidean space straight line is not necessarily a geodesic", these also operate on a human-language conceptual level, where we make some presumptions about what a straight line is. Imagine a plane and that the distances on that plane can be modelled by imagining in 3D Euclidean space a perfectly flat plane with a perfect hemispherical bulge and viewing that plane isometrically top-down. Now when you draw a straight line that passes through the conceptual bulge area, but not the bulge's center, you've drawn a "straight line" which is not a geodesic. A useful observation because it draws a distinction between everyday concepts which can be modeled by Euclidean planes and other very common concepts which we think of as plane-like which cannot (like the surface of a sphere).
To be rigorous, the straight line/geodesic maxim refers to the parallel postulate. (It's actually more strict than how you described it in the discussion since your description still includes hyperbolic geometries. It sounds rude to point this out but mathematics is the study of exactness.) Euclidean plane can be described as the one like a flat piece of paper, or whatever it is in which you draw Cartesian coordinates, but those concepts make a piss-poor job of defining it. This is why even 2300 years ago someone saw it absolutely necessary to devise a short series of cunning criteria (axioms) which describe what conditions a plane satisfies and happen to be such that everything that is not an Euclidean plane fails at least one axiom. To be more rigorous, Euclid's axioms are not quite enough, see ordered geometry, Hilbert's axioms.
Now to try to answer your original question. I'm going to take a guess that since you talk about bumpy sheets, distroted planes and such, when you mean "2D space plus something else", you refer to the ways that we like to represent non-"Euclidean plane"-ish things, like the hyperbolic paraboloid for a hyperbolic plane. The thing is that the plane is not its representation. The hyperbolic paraboloid in 3D Euclidean space is not the plane, but rather its surface conforms to the equations that describe the plane. As in ceci n'est pas une pipe. We use the 3D hyperbolid paraboloid because it happens to make it easier to relate and quicker to derive more truths about the plane.
Similarly, if you want to use laws of physics and gravity in particular to describe the motion of Moon around the Earth, you're going to have a much easier time if you stick the center of your coordinate system to the Earth's center, and not the center of the Halley comet. You're going to easily see and grok the pattern of the ellipse, and get very good first-order approximations for pretty long motion extrapolations in your calculations. That doesn't mean there's anything special in observing from the Earth center or Halley's comet, or any potential path wandering through the universe, simply some make for easier conceptualization. You can for example perfectly describe laws of universe from the perspective of a non-rotating stationary Earth, it's just that those laws will be ever more complicated and arbitrary-looking the farther out you move in the hierarchy of the universe, and the observed patterns will be too confusing to give you further insight.
The point of all this is that while n+1-dimensional Euclidean space is useful to understand a type of n-dimensional non-Euclidean space, it's not required. It's a conceptual aid. Another way to conceive this non-Euclidean plane is as a normal plane with Cartesian coordinates but with a different, more complicated metric. Like we typically see our own space, with black holes and Einstein rings as simply areas where geodesics don't look "straight" rather than visualizing an extra dimension (whether that dimension exists or not). So that's a counterexample for extra dimension visualization being necessary, and what I said here about the curved non-Euclidean plane goes also for the Euclidean plane. So the answer is that the Euclidean plane doesn't need that "something else".
Hope I was of some help. 93.136.115.7 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Focus stacking: link between picture and topic
Dear RTG
As far as I see, you added the picture of the three teenagers on a jetski.
Please let me know if I am wrong.
May I ask you what this picture has to do with focus stacking?
I cannot see any link.
BR,
Bachrockt (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It is in a relevant category on Commons. It's the odd one out all right. I would of said it was an example of manual tracking, but I used it to balance the thumbnails really. There are many hundreds of others on... Commons:Category:Focus stacking. @Bachrockt:. ~ R.T.G 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the rover sample was more appropriate... ~ R.T.G 19:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I added image captions to the pictures in the gallery, and I replaced the Mekong - very likely not a stacked image - removed from article image with a more appropriate one mold on Litchi - definitely a stacked image - added to article because the former was very obviously not generated through stacking. Bachrockt (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Fits very well. Well done, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 06:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Your reverts.
You reverted some of my work today on Holocene Extinction Please join me on the talk page so we can work out a compromise.
Riventree (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Fountain of the Canals of the Pear Tree
Hey, thanks for adding that to OTD. We just need the date to be cited in the article, so if you can take care of that it will be good to go. —howcheng {chat} 20:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Howcheng:, hi I did find it mentioned on the article but it wasn't cited, so I've added a citation oand it is the last sentence in the article, "The third observance is on March 21, 2020." Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 21:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Select Retail Holdings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
April 2020
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Your re-insertion of challenged content is a breach of the expected standards of behaviour. A YouTube video is not one of the high quality sources that is required for biomedical claims as laid out at WP:MEDRS. The source does not even meet the standards for WP:SPS: self-published material ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Please do not reinsert that content without a MEDRS-compliant source. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS:It's not a claim. It's diagrammatic description of the mechanics of the disease, which is missing off the article and scarcely to be found elsewhere, in a self published source, by a medical expert. The video begins with his going over his qualifications and showing his certificates. He is a head of a paediatric surgery department. He knows the basic mechanics of lung operation and SARS diseases. We don't, and we aren't going to find out from Wikipedia, and that is wrong in all quarters. You aren't trying to fix what is an obvious need for that article. And that is wrong too. You aren't assessing the source, as you have inferred would be relevant by your mention of experts in the field, you are simply blobbing and voting against that sort of thing. Against the Wikipedia sort of thing. Thanks for your input. ~ R.T.G 18:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
When you write "COVID-19 finds a way into a surfactant producing type II cell and smothers it by reproducing COVID-19 virus within it. Each type II cell which perishes to the virus causes an extreme reaction in the lungs. Fluids, pus and dead cell material flood the lung, causing the coronavirus pulmonary disease., you are making a claim about the mechanism of action of the virus. That is obviously a biomedical claim, and it needs a good quality, reliable source. The YouTube video is a self published source, not by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. What makes you think that a "weight-loss surgeon" is an an established, published expert on virology? What are his publications on virology to support your assertion?
MEDRS is quite clear: "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. and that YouTube video does not meet that standard. Neither you nor I are qualified to assess the source in detail; but we will remove sources that don't meet the project-wide agreed criteria for quality.
We are not going to rely on someone who "knows the basic mechanics of lung operation" to source information on the mechanism of SARS-Cov-2. If you want Wikipedia's content to include a biomedical claim about that, then find an academic and professional book written by experts, a scholarly review, or a statement from a national or international expert body as a source to support that content. If you can't find any of those, it's a pretty good sign that the content shouldn't be in Wikipedia at this point. Get with the program. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
General surgeons are experts necessarily on the mechanics and pathology of the basic elements of the body, such as the lung. Virologists are not. They are experts on the structure of cells and partial cells. There is a video on the article posted by virologists discussing the virus. I believe she said the virologists are not the true experts in the medical aspect, didn't she? I'm going to go and watch it again. Oh and Rexx, you are going to rely on an expert of basic lung function. That's what this disease affects. You don't know what you are talking about. I also agreed that I couldn't find this from a decent source. That is a travesty on their part, not an error on mine. You don't know what you are talking about. You should try to before being so definitive about what is necessary to describe it. Shouldn't you? ~ R.T.G 19:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS:I am not offended by your argument, it's understandable even, but please keep the discussion on the other page for now. ~ R.T.G 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This wasn't an argument, it was a warning. I don't have to put up with your repeated personal attacks like "You don't know what you are talking about." I'll be asking an uninvolved admin to take steps. --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You literally do not know what you are talking about. The issue is not about virology. It is about pathology. I have personalised nothing, but now I will. You have been warned. What do you think this is, an interpersonal issue? ~ R.T.G 20:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Look I'm sorry if you feel personally insulted, but you aren't focused on the content of the article, and I'll have to stand to any personal debate in any case, so don't threaten me in any way if you believe I have good faith. It is not necessary if I am required to be stopped at anything. It reveals more about you than me in that case. If you do not believe I am acting in good faith, then how come tht response is directly after I claim you are understandable? You feel patronised. Well I consider this urgent and nobody has picked it up for what, two weeks? Don't tell me you are managing the article, when you do not concede the importance of this aspect of the topic, okay? Such an approach coupled with other minor details would suggest that instead you are holding a personalised card. ~ R.T.G 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to make it worse, I am going to point out, that what I am trying to do with the article is for people like you as much as anybody else. People who take it for granted there is no point believing in a simple understanding of such a complex subject. Well you are wrong, and that's probably not your fault. Is that an attack on you personally? Well, it depends how you see yourself. ~ R.T.G 20:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The sourcing for your contributions has to live up to our MEDRS standards. This is not a recommendation — it is not optional. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Failure to... what? I cannot find a source for this. It's ridiculous. SARS has been around for like, forever. ~ R.T.G 21:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Failure to adhere to these terms. You are not allowed to add material that is attributed to non-MEDRS sources. It's not complicated. El_C 21:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I provided an argument that I was indeed following WP:MEDRS. And that was the point at which these sanctions were imposed without further discussion. No it isn't complicated. ~ R.T.G 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
That argument has been rejected by the various participants, You need to come to terms with that. El_C 23:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
General Sanctions - COVID 19 - Topic Ban
The following sanction has been imposed on you:
Topic banned from SARS CoV-2 ("the coronavirus"), COVID-19, and related topics, broadly construed for 1 month.
You have been sanctioned for disruption regarding sources
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus and COVID-19, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EvergreenFir(talk) 22:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Per the WP:GS/COVID general sanctions, I am topic banning you from "SARS CoV-2 ("the coronavirus"), COVID-19, and related topics, broadly construed" for 1 month with the purpose of stopping your disruption in this topic area. EvergreenFir(talk) 22:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I can point out here this is a nonsense ban in my view if I haven't broken the ban or otherwise gone out of my remit. I write that because of fear. This was about an argument to prevent even discussing considering a surgeons credentials, if they were known to promote themselves as a "slimming surgeon" and use YouTube as a medium to post a video, which I don't like or consider a best source, but bias I should not, and live in fear of popular intolerance, I should not. If I live with fear of intolerance without substance, I will go insane wondering if I know what I am doing. No source is judged by their genre unless it can be shown, not simply that the genre is unpopular, as this genre is even with me, but can be shown that the genre directly proves unreliability. Only reliability of the source is valid towards reliability of the source. That was not up for discussion here, and the only basis for these reactions was the fact that I would not pretend I could see things another, fearfully intolerant way. The edit warring was not true, one revert of one edit, a two sentence paragraph which changed nothing in the article so much as to add something. The quoted guideline to me WP:MEDRS was taken to be a match for WP:RS, which it was not at this time, and did not provide the ban for the particular source. Saying so got me in trouble. Keep your fear close enough for you to see it, but never let it guide your way. It's called an open mind. The site was in no danger and neither was the article. A week later the newspapers were publishing the same information. ~ R.T.G 03:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The article should be divided into sections. There are no categories at the moment. Also, add a reception section. There are seven reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. You have cited IMDB as a source, note that it isn't a reliable source. Also, there is an infobox for films. The external link is dead. this source is a good one if you want to expand the article. You have nominated the article for DYK, I have fixed all the errors it caused. Note that the ALT1 is kind of misleading hook. Thanks for creating the article.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CAPTAIN MEDUSA}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: yes became aware of the misleading hook, please discuss that at DYK however. Infobox done, the external link is not dead at all from here. I wasn't sure if seven review on Rotten Tomatoes was enough, the critics section was empty, does that not imply 7 user generated reviews? Didn't seem notable enough. I'm going to leave the Hollywood Reporter article to someone else, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 13:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Toxic Beauty
Hello! Your submission of Toxic Beauty at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
On 4 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Toxic Beauty, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the 2019 documentary Toxic Beauty, thousands of carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting chemicals are used in cosmetic products in the U.S. without adequate government regulation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toxic Beauty. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Toxic Beauty), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Just stop trolling. I am not interested in your rather childish attempt to troll me, nor in your personal comments about me. You obviously have a problem with something, but I suggest you go elsewhere and do it. Your edits on the talk page show you have no interest in developing the article. The thread is archived, so leave it in the archive, don't edit it in the archive again, and walk away. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The only part of Craigs quote which can be proved by the weight of publication is "that spark of niceness in a relationship." According to Google definitions, Quantum:"a required or allowed amount, especially an amount of money legally payable in damages" and Solace:"comfort or consolation in a time of great distress or sadness". Why can't you use that? Because you personally don't want to. If that is an insult, well that's what it is then. ~ R.T.G 06:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: You deleted my talkpage response to avoid this scrutiny. ~ R.T.G 06:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hoseshit. There are two reliable sources that cover the quote. If you can't get your head round that, then there is nothing left to be said. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hoseshit? What I have suggested here is an informative improvement. You are only open to winning the argument. The way I see it, such reaction to the endless outing of "the media" is to be expected and understandable, but you've got to be open to being wrong and getting improved on. If you would come half of the way, as I have suggested here, you'd have little to complain about and the argument would go away. I am sorry for using the word "personal" but you are vehemently defending a British tabloid journal. ~ R.T.G 06:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
You're trolling again. I am not defending anything except that quote. It is in two sources, both of them reliable. I'm done here, as your posts do not reflect reality and your comments are unconstructive and untruthful. – SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources are conflicting. You are defending a specific version with no attempt to qualify it over another. The purpose of the quote seems to be, to explain the title of the story. I've suggested defining the words... You aren't interested in that. You are only interested in having the argument. Yet it is insignificant towards your contributions, even in this specific article. There is a conflicting resource, we should reflect that. Which part is unrealistic? ~ R.T.G 08:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I don't mean to offend you, honestly I don't. I've no idea why you like this quote. I realise how cynical I am about this. It wasn't my intention to add this cynicism to the debate either, but when I realised it was boiling down to one tabloid version of reality versus another tabloid version of reality, I couldn't help it. Tabloid have traditionally swung from support to provocation. They are manipulators. They are the fourth branch of government based out of culturing reactionary apathy. No kind song was ever popularly sung about the tabloid media. They are the Jersey Shore of documentary media in this part of the world. They conflict, sensationalise, and provoke. When they appear not only to make a mistake, but to fantasise at length, I am down like a tonne of bricks and cannot be swayed. I am not perfect. I do not deserve the world to follow my wishes, but I have wishes nevertheless, and basing Wikipedia out of fantastic tabloidism, even a little quote here or there, is not one of those wishes. It was my intention to add a neutral perspective to the issue. However, I am not neutral on sensationalism, and Wikipedia is against it too. Whoever heard of proving a reliably published documentary source without showing it to exist? Tabloid journalism probably did. Hardly a state secret. ~ R.T.G 17:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Not interested. The fact you're wittering on about tabloids when there are no tabloids involved is beyond me, but that's possibly because I don't care, given what you've said previously. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLP says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;" This material should be considered biographical, especially given that it can be found in their biography, differently quoted to your preferred version, and it is poorly sourced, end of story. ~ R.T.G 08:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It's untrue to say it is poorly sourced: there are two reliable sources that contain it. You're also obviously ignorant of how such press junkets take place: the film's stars are put in a room and a stream of journalists are allowed 5-10 minutes to interview them. The questions are normally fairly similar, and thus, the answers are along the same lines.
The fact that there are many, many different versions of the quote around does not mean any one is, in itself, better than another: it is the specific wording that is of interest. I find this to be a better quote than any of the others that have appeared. Now, as we have a good quote, cited to two reliable sources (neither of which are tabloids, neither of which are under question), then we are now at "end of story". Enough time wasted on this, although I'll let you have The Last Word, as that seems to be important to you. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing to do with how the quote was received. It was rejected for being a Daily Mail quote. Rather than accept that, you replaced the source with both a Daily Mail owned syndicate and a paper which doesn't seem to exist. His biography gives a similar quote in a slightly different way, which would solve this debate... why are we not interested in that? If you want to explain the meaning of the title, which I think may be a good idea... why are we not actually explaining it then? Neither of the sources are under question if, as you say, it isn't even necessary that they seem to exist. ~ R.T.G 13:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
"a paper which doesn't seem to exist"? Now that's a straight lie: I've wikilinked it for you previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)
It's not about me and you at the end of the day, SchroCat. It's the content. I don't think the lengthier quote makes straight sense anyway, yet the Quantum of Solace title is a bit iffy in comparison, where Bond titles usually have a sort of an obvious slangy slant or other reference to familiar phrase in them. I say... just say that Craig says... it was something in a relationship, as his biography says, which is a kindness for him to reference his biography... also proving insofar as there was a question, what does this title mean... and answer the question properly beside by defining quantum and solace out of the dictionary. Try to find something which says that the title is unusual for a Bond title to back up why it is being explained. It'll be a fuller section then. About the "lie", I am sort of trying to goad you into even accepting that the reference isn't presented very well. You are conceding absolutely nothing with this yet arguing passionately about it. If the Daily Mail is so important, why does its Wikipedia infobox still say it is an affiliate of fascism, and if it isn't, come on, let's improve this section and stop all the nonsense. I don't care about the last word, there are no more angles to this argument. ~ R.T.G 07:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
More obsession with the Mail? THE MAIL IS NOT USED IN THE ARTICLE. Two reliable sources are used. I'm glad of the admission of goading/trolling. It tells me all I need to know about you. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you aren't prepared to look at the content of said goading rather than react to the use of the word, there can be little point being honest and open with you(). I'm a clever person. I can be manipulative in an argument. Simply using the word manipulative is not evidence that I am trying to make you freak out. In this case, it is trying to manipulate you to notice, or acknowledge, that a reference is extremely poorly filled in. I told you about it in case you didn't notice... Use the biography and the dictionary please. No need to further ellude that suggestion. ~ R.T.G 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
RTG, it has been over a month since you nominated this, and you still haven't submitted a QPQ review. At this point, the nomination may be marked for closure at any time; I hope you are able to provide the required QPQ before it is closed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonSet, but it does not look like the article is going to be treated without a blatantly errored bias twisting (straight out lies). ~ R.T.G 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I'm not sure why you would post me a caution at this moment in time. I've reverted like five words of text on you and otherwise the discussion is ongoing over a month without incident. ~ R.T.G 13:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Claudio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. scope_creepTalk 00:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please revise a problematic comment
Recall last month Femke posted the DS Alert notice about climate change here on your talk page. They are no-fault/no-shame notices. However, if there is a papertrail in the last 12 months showing you know about this, you are obligated to follow it. I think all the climate regulars have received one of these. The reason I bring it up is to call your attention to WP:ARBCC#Principles. I assume you already know about that, since it was in the links in the notice Femke provided. Indeed, spreading such knowledge is the reason for the notice. So with that said, please revise your remark at Talk:Global_Warming to remove your accusations about other editor's motives. See also, WP:Assume good faith and WP:Casting aspersions. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Having an actively pursued zero-see-also section on a widely branching topic like global warming, must be like the dumbest thing I ever heard of, and coupled with the largest recommended reading section I have seen on any article on this site ever, with something like 6 or 7 sections, each the length of a long article, bottomed out by a recommended news article section whose links lack any form of individual significance, what so ever... there can be little else to conclude except that you are trying to guide readers off the site, instead of further into it, and I am complaining about that. Aspersions about your motivations? Only the wildest aspersions, so no, I made none. Assume good faith? I am tired of arguing on your page about minor links and explanations toward relative content, only to be responded to blatantly with things like, "If it isn't in a summary for policy makers we don't cover it. You cannot get more biased than politically biased. Oh, but RTG, this is a really good bias... You do not need bias for this topic. People who are skeptical do not start out being stupid... They start out being skeptical... when they find their information providers have been manipulative. After that they realise they do not have any direct knowledge of global warming, that all of their knowledge of it is based on trust... and the beat goes on. If you find a personal attack in that, I'll make you a personal barnstar. However, if you feel, personally attacked by that... well that's psychology. Maybe I have some good faith left after all, however, the one man war over little niggles with you and your group on the global warming page, only a madman would still have faith in accomplishing anything. I am familiar with the basic principles of the site. You can be sure, the core of any perceived personal attacks will actually be attempts to improve it, okay? Is that not particularly flattering? Good. And when you get back, tell your friend I am not looking for a biscuit. I am simply trying to convince people, who claim to be at the doctorate level of this topic, that some of the important aspects are not readily apparent. ~ R.T.G 17:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
All I can give you, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, is that it isn't a personal bad faith. It's a general one. Look for instance at this edit[8]. Pointing out that there are hiatus in warming can be perceived as an indication of success. Hiding it only draws negative attention. When an average person decides to be skeptical, they don't pursue a career of research, they find an omission like this, combined with several such manipulations, and they turn, not to some counter culture you perceive, but away. They simply stop listening to you in kind. It's simple stuff if you are open to being both neutral and wrong. Righteousness always seems right. That's why it's called that, huh..? And the harder you pummel them for reacting to your selective methodology, the more resilient they become, while at the same time the more narrow you become, which is a widening door to error, compounding the skeptic exponentially, not unlike global warming effects themselves. It is simple stuff but hey, maybe all I want is a biscuit, is to sign my username on the article... like I wouldn't be capable of doing a bit of copyediting or referencing... So maybe you are complaining that my good faith seems to be shortening, but you certainly aren't trying to reassure that good faith, adversaire. ~ R.T.G 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And seeing you are perceiving aspersions where they are not apparent, well I obviously have some, don't I? It will do me no favours to damage you with dissatisfaction, so how about, some of your main contributors to the global warming article are budding to publish work on the issue... The larger the body of global warming skepticism, the more need of their work. Not quite the attack you may have expected, but it is certainly a founded suspicion, given that you are supporting substitution of the see also section, with an extraordinarily massive external link and library farm, isn't it? Oh, but that would be a ridiculous suggestion. Unfair. I won't accuse you of that. You shouldn't have to worry about these things. Maybe it will fix itself. Maybe you can just burn... something else? ~ R.T.G 21:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Annoying floating image - instructions for turning that off
I was about to complain about your image interfering with the purpose of user talk pages, citing the WP:TPG on excessive markup, but then I saw the advice in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#RTG:_Annoying_image_on_talk_page, where another user told the rest of us how to turn that off, if we feel the need. The fix is to modify our common.css files with the following syntax
FYI, I tried it, and it works for me!
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
My little monkey friend is sooooooo annooooooyyyinng that sometimes, you even have to use scroll, just to edit a section. Do you like magnolia? I don't. There's just too much of it! Almost every cheap or landlord-owned house is either white or magnolia inside. It's such a crisis in aestheticism. ~ R.T.G 17:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
LOL
OMG, I just saw the link you posted at Jimmy's TP. My sides ache from laughing. AtsmeTalk📧 02:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There's a version with Sanders on the back lifting the change out of her pocket, whether that's the reality I don't know x)~ R.T.G 00:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
DS alert - MOS
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello. I've closed the site ban discussion at ANI as having consensus for a site ban. This is subject to the standard conditions at WP:UNBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Fairyhouse racecourse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer Waters 22:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Affirmative action. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WelpThatWorked -- WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
; see Talk:Hole for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WelpThatWorked -- WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)