User talk:Rp2006

Hi Rp2006! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:19, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Belgian UFO wave into Black triangle (UFO). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I mostly added new information but I do believe some was copied from Belgium page into the Belgium section of the Triangle page. Thanks for the info... I was unaware of these rules! RobP (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I like your recent additions to Homeopathy but it seems like you've interchanged "FDA" and "FTC" in the text a little. For instance the citation you added named "FDA2016" is actually an FTC document and although it mentions the FDA in passing, doesn't commit the FDA to doing anything. Likewise the next sentence talks about "an FDA press release" but the citation is to a press release on the FTC website. I was going to fix it for you but I figured you might still be editing and I just thought I'd call it out. --Krelnik (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out. Should be all FTC - and should be correct now. If I missed anything else, feel free to fix it.RobP (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Guy Macon: I followed this link and can find nothing! Can you elaborate? RobP (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It was closed and archived. You can find it in the archives at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive287#Request_to_overturn_administrator.27s_decision ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rp2006, if you wish to do a valid review of this article, please follow the instructions at WP:GANI. Reviews should go by this process, and occur on their own page, not be inserted directly on the article's talk page. I'm going to revert your edit there; you are welcome to open the review properly and include your comments on that page, and then close it per the instructions. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just looked at the article history, and I see that you've made 16 edits to the article. According to the GA instructions, reviewers should Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review. Since that is the case, you may not be eligible to review it. What I would suggest instead is to post your issues on the talk page, and how the article falls short of the GA criteria, though not as a formal GA review. When the article does get a reviewer, you can then post a pointer to your talk-page post on the review page, and any further explanation you feel appropriate. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rp2006. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Your change to RPM has been reverted. Per WP:MALPLACED, please do not point "Foo" titles to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles. Also, please do not ever change the nature of a redirect with a large number of incoming links without first obtaining consensus. Please note that all incoming links must be fixed before such a change is made. bd2412 T 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add "paranormal" banner to pages such as Majestic 12 and other articles, when the explanation for these events are either a hoax, or has been explained in ways that have nothing to do with any paranormal activities. If you disagree, please take your reasons to the article(s) Talk page. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying my response from Talk:Roswell UFO incident:

@David J Johnson:: To me, your take that this and other UFO-related articles should not connected with the word "paranormal" is extremely odd. What do you make of the fact that the paranormal side banner (which you deleted) actually includes UFOs in its list, and that most all UFO topics have the WikiProject Paranormal banner on their talk pages? Also note that in the category listed below for this article, "paranormal" is included numerous times. As I understand it, your objection to this is because UFO's are not "real"? Well (likely) neither is Bigfoot or ghosts or energy healing, so are you going to claim those - or anything else that is wrong or a hoax - is not a valid paranormal topic either? If that were true, then nothing at all would be classified that way, and the word would lose all meaning! RobP (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Answered on the Roswell Talk page, as previously requested by myself. David J Johnson (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, with all due respect, why in the world did you remove the rebuttal section in this article, here?

Thank you for weighing in on the [talk page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyler_Henry&diff=next&oldid=782698059] about your edit. However, your removal of this section has made the article one-sided and biased.

I agree my edit was "too short," but what do you propose as the solution. Please don't complain unless you have a better idea. I mean, all that psychic stuff is spooky (and I honestly don't know whether it's true or not), but you have this huge section "against" the subject, and the small section "for" him was deleted, making a biased article even more biased. This is not encyclopedic.

But, if you mean that my edit (adding the rebuttal section in right here) was too brief and curt, I would agree with you. Help me fix that, so the article is balanced and explains both (or all) sides of the issue. Thank you.96.59.177.219 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, I also added a criticism on religious grounds (saying he is fake if he gets his information from demons), which helps balance the article, since I added back in the thing you deleted, but expanding it to make it Encyclopedic. Read both my edits before you make a decision, ok? Thanks.96.59.177.219 (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is not that your edit was too short. A Wiki article is not the place to have an ongoing argument. Reliably cited facts are stated in a Wiki article and then, when appropriate, challenged... either in a criticism section as here, or after each point. There is no Rebuttal section needed. Should there then be a Rebuttal to the rebuttals section? And so on? If there are more (reliably sourced) facts on the positive side, add them to the sections above Criticisms. Also, please open an official Wiki account. RobP (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope you see how you screwed yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida). I think you overestimated the degree to which editors would respond to your call that BnBs were involved in writing articles about these houses in order to help business. You kept adding new entries after the AfD started under that same rationale and the aggregate refused, preferring to keep NRHP sites. I made the case in my comment that GEOFEAT requires more than listing but you didn't make that case and you confused the issue. Sometimes you're going to do a good job of providing rationale and the aggregate will just vote per WP:ILIKEIT, which they do pretty often. Sometimes, however, you present a less-than-stellar case and you get your ass handed to you. I wanted to see deletions but that didn't happen and your AfD stats remain a pathetic 0% with consensus. Anyway, please learn this lesson and perhaps next time you'll be more successful. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: First off. What's with the hostile attitude? Second, I screwed myself? How did I do anything to myself? I don't actually have a horse in this race. I observed something that seemed untoward, and put it out there for the community of those who might care (and know better) to confirm or deny. If they decide to KEEP, so be it. And as for the "you kept adding new entries..." Well I actually did it all in one sitting within a very short time. (Maybe a half hour?) I put the first B&B up for AfD and only then discovered the bulk option. So I went right to work adding the others that looked to me to be related. How was I to know some folks would be so hot to vote almost instantly before I was done, and then others would use that as an excuse to say KEEP? In any case, it seems that what I did wrong was to lump houses together incorrectly, not realizing the differences in the type of house. As I understand it, you are free to fine tune this and try again. So if you are more knowledgeable about this subject than am I, just renominate the B&Bs that you feel are of the same type type and deserving of deletion. A sincere good luck! RobP (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No hostility on my end; I apologize if it sounded that way. Again, I agree with what you were trying to do. What you saw was untoward. I thought you went about it the wrong way and the inclusionists got you. I'm not going to renominate any of those this year as the aggregate's going to reject it. Maybe 2018, if I even get around to it. Anytime any page goes live you should expect others to see it within minutes. You own your AfD ratio. If you don't care, fine. For me, if I make a nomination under a rationale and it fails, I'd take the aggregate's rebuke seriously. So, for you to say that you don't care sounds like you didn't believe in the case you were making. AfD isn't a method of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. I was offering advice to help you, which I guess isn't wanted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey RobP i came here to sympathize about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida) in a friendly way, which I think is what User:Chris troutman was meaning here too. I don't understand everything Chris troutman is saying but agree with the general gist of it; he is sharing about how hard it is sometimes with AFDs when a bunch of wp:inclusionists get riled up, as happened here, and he is trying to suggest how to be more successful. I am an inclusionist myself, but i am feeling a bit cranky and commented negatively about the NRHP articles having existed 10 years without improvement. I mostly work on NRHP articles. Me and the other NRHP editors have succeeded perhaps too well in convincing others that "if NRHP then good sources exist, so Keep" (even without the sources being included). I wouldn't advise trying to get any NRHP articles deleted, as will probably fail, although I do agree the category you pointed to, of houses in Florida (almost all NRHPs) is quite bad quality. FYI, it is especially bad because [Wikipedia's] NRHP coverage in Florida is the poorest of anywhere: there are about 2800 NRHP articles nationwide which a bot detects and labels with "NRIS-only" tag identifying as being very minimal; one quarter of those, 780 recently, are in Florida (which is about 1/2 of all Florida NRHP articles being minimal, a far higher percentage than anywhere else, [despite NRHP nomination documents actually being available online for almost all Florida NRHPs, but not used]). The bot statistics are at WikiProject NRHP workspace page wp:NRHPPROGRESS, by the way. Hope this helps give some perspective somehow. Cheers, --doncram 00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is also now ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam House about another NRHP article. --doncram 22:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rp2006. You have new messages at Talk:Robert_Burnham_Jr.#Photo?.
Message added 20:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Made reply on article's Talk page. RobP (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

On 12/14/17 Tony Ortega sent me a photo he is owner of and I had him email Commons their license verification form. Just now I uploaded the photo to Commons and added it to the info-box.RobP (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rp2006. You have new messages at Talk:Robert_Burnham_Jr.#Photo?.
Message added TuckerResearch (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Rob, I blocked that range because of how quickly IP addresses change within it, making it very easy for vandalism to slip by unnoticed or improperly reverted. See this page history (from my edit onwards) for an example of this). A lot of edits from that range are also vandalism. I think the vandalism risk is outweighed by the collateral damage in this case. As you said, users affected by that block can still log in to edit; it's also possible for them to create an account if need be. Graham87 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to start trouble, but I have some concern with the page on David Paulides. I don't think that it is a fair representation of him or his work. I totally understand and support skepticism, but I think in this case, it is a bit bias. Specifically, I'm referring to his missing 411 books. Reading through the information there, it seems as if it is intended to discredit him, instead of provide information about his work. I have personally read all of the missing 411 series and the information he presents is all fact based. The skeptics quoted were inaccurate in their portrayal, and they obviously had predetermined conclusions on the validity that influenced their reviews. He never once purported to know a cause or causes of the disappearances discussed, furthermore, he goes to great lengths to explain that he only listed and wrote about cases that fit a certain criteria of unexplainable circumstances. Which is contrary to what was said by one or more of the skeptics quoted. I won't take up any more of your time bringing up examples of how they are being misleading, but I would appreciate it if you could look into this a little further and maybe correct some of these things.

Again, I'm not trying to be one of those egotistical guys, that thinks they know better, or gets off of on finding and pointing out perceived mistakes. I'm just pointing it out because I think it's a misrepresentation of his work. I also believe that people need to be made aware of the things he discusses so that they can be more careful when visiting the outdoors. I know his intentions are to educate people, not to frighten them. Thank you, regardless of what you end up doing with this information, I appreciate you taking the time to read this and hear my thoughts. -Dustin Dustin sharber (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dustin sharber: I am copying this to the Talk page for the article in question as that is a more appropriate place to discuss the topic. 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rp2006! With David Wolfe, Forbes.com contributors are regarded as self-published sources, as they are more akin to bloggers with almost no editorial oversight. Thus, per WP:BLPSPS, we can't use articles by Forbes contributors to source material about living people. It tends to catch editors out, as the Forbes name would suggest that it is reliable, but the contributors are different and separate to their staff. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please link to a WP article verifying your claim. RobP (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSP lists Frobes.com as "Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources" - there have been numerous discussions about this on WP:BLPN and WP:RSN. As there is minimal to no oversight of Forbes.com contributor posts, and as they post directly, it is seen as self published, and cannot be used as sources of material about a living person other than the author. - Bilby (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have also brought this issue up on the David Wolfe talk page here. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I criticized you at AN3, you are not the subject of the report, but I still think you should know. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: I have to say that the discussion in the link you provided is not easy to follow, and I see no reference to me at all. What was I accused of doing? RobP (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the diffs I linked in my last comment was you making an unexplained revert. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced addition of the NYT article by itself is enough of a difference to change people's minds. Looking over the old AfD, I see a few felt the article was self-promotional. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon with both good and bad articles at AfD: if it reads like an admiring writer milked every source for trivial details, people will vote against it on the basis that the editor is probably trying to promote someone or something, even though it is adequately sourced. If you would consent to let me take a hatchet to your draft article, I might be able to trim and copyedit enough to mitigate the impression of promotion. You could always revert to your old version if you disagree with my edits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go for it! RobP (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I took it as far as I can go today. Although I may fix typos and tweak a little later tonight. Understatement is the key to successful encyclopedic bio writing. Unless your subject is someone who has 10 books written about them, better to go with unadorned facts. Note that I cut out all the personal trivia; things like the first time he met Randi, or the first time he went to a psychic, or his favorite color (kidding). Also, I only gave a cursory look to the references, so I can't guarantee they're bulletproof. You should cite the highest quality sources you have, and be very stingy with selfpub and fringe sources, avoiding them if you can. And I haven't closely examined the bibliography. You may want to remove stuff published on GhostTheory etc. and keep only solid mainstream publishing.- LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will take a deeper look tonight, but at a quick look-over I see you deleted the section I started for the NYT material and citation which I thought was critical to trying again at this time. Why?? RobP (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see any cite to the NYT article, just the CSI article. But I will create and add the cite and see if any details from Kenny's paras are worth extracting for other sections.(BTW, showcasing the name of the publication in the article text, e.g. "...which was covered by The New York Times in February 2019. According to Jack Hitt..." comes off to reviewers as desperate to prove notability, 'Look! He was mentioned in the New York Times! By a writer! ) From my reading of the NYT story, the story is about Susan and her sting ops. Kenny and wife appear as details, so it's not the critical difference that's going to put you over the top in terms of changing reviewers minds about notability. The bigger problem was too much fancruft, which made the article appear fawning rather than encyclopedic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, added details from the NYT magazine story that were relevant. I think that's about all we can realistically squeeze from it. Yes, it's cute that he wears a Thor's Hammer charm. But please don't include that unless you want the article to be compared to something found in Tiger Beat ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh you are funny... I had just pasted in all the text from the NYT article about Kenny as a temp thing to have it all there to figure out what to use! Def not the hammer.

Update: read it over in detail and had to change just a few things, mostly concerning the description of Biddle's role in the sting. Thanks so much. You did an amazing job! Now the problem of getting it republished. I started to do that and ran into a wall. It seems because of the AfD there is a problematic process to make it live, that needs to involve the admin who closed the AfD. Trouble is he is retired! Amazingly, the process does NOT cover this scenario, so I asked what to do at the Teahouse. RobP (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Good move. Hope it will be reconsidered. BTW, I never read the *entire* DRV discussion until just now. Weird. And a lot of michegas about possible WP:SPA votes. Maybe that’s why recreation is protected []. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It definitely seemed unfair. I was so upset at how that went down. Especially because I could never get the actual points of my arguments about notability (which were seconded by some others) answered by the Delete voters. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Well I have resubmitted it - hopefully correctly. The procedure description is anything but clear. RobP (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain more about this revert. Totally agree with your wording, in substance, but the placement there is problematic, in that the editing out of misses wasn't a part of the portrayal of the show, nor does it belong as part of the official premise of the show, nor is it supported by the citation there, which is just to the show itself. It's true that the episodes did contain all kinds of supportive testimonies from audience members interspersed between segments. That said, I do see the editing criticism down in the skepticism section; if you have even more material, it'd be great to add it down there with the source(s). Grandpallama (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gua sha. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain what you meant here? It does not seem like a truthful request to me. Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I was attempting - as I said in my original edit today - to put the article back to its state of Feb 17th, so that (as I said) it could be incrementally improved again with consensus. After Feb 17th, Littleghostboo made edits that to me looked like Littleghostboo was removing valid skeptical content (Science-Based Medicine, etc). But it was hard to see between Littleghostboo and your edits what was going on. It looked to me that you were supporting Littleghostboo in this effort. Though I do not agree with your approach, I see now you were not. RobP (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I was just poking around to attempt to find instructions on how to notify admins that I'd like the the lock lifted, and I can find no instructions on how to do that. Any ideas? RobP (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As the article was protected at THERIGHTVERSION is there any point in unprotection when it will be automatically unprotected in a week? If you still want to unprotect, request at RFPP. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rp2006. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Deconverted".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, read that way too quickly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
243		Vertebral subluxation (talk)	Add sources
2		Sol Invictus - ANU (talk)	Add sources
215		Foeticide (talk)	Add sources
54		Uell Stanley Andersen (talk)	Add sources
64		Maria Konnikova (talk)	Add sources
1,308		Hybrid vehicle (talk)	Add sources
2,176		Intersectionality (talk)	Cleanup
1,120		Q (Star Trek) (talk)	Cleanup
1,090		Oncology (talk)	Cleanup
156		Epstein–Barr virus infection (talk)	Expand
1,046		The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (talk)	Expand
60		Déjà Q (talk)	Expand
134		Diksha (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
507		Eckankar (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
477		Astrological age (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
366		Faith healing (talk)	Merge
45		Mind–body interventions (talk)	Merge
68		Dance in ancient Egypt (talk)	Merge
270		Andrew Weil (talk)	Wikify
788		Daniel Ortega (talk)	Wikify
10		Biblioteca Museu Víctor Balaguer (talk)	Wikify
2		2001 Ouro Preto Murder Case (talk)	Orphan
9		Biological terrain assessment (talk)	Orphan
3		Paul Lieberman (talk)	Orphan
8		Naitaba (talk)	Stub
39		United States Naval Support Detachment, São Paulo (talk)	Stub
8		50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (talk)	Stub
31		Michael A. Epstein (talk)	Stub
96		The Magic (book) (talk)	Stub
5		Katarchic astrology (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it didn't occur to me to ping you, but I would sincerely urge you to retract your nomination here and close the nomination as speedy keep. There's no realistic way the article is going to get deleted at this point, and it just makes you look like a better Wikipedian if you can admit a mistake. The kind of people who persistently double down when it's been pointed out that they are wrong are just the worst kind of people, who really should not be allowed edit Wikipedia at all, and yet a surprising proportion of the community (at least the ones active on several high-traffic fora I could mention) appear to be those kind of people. Taking this opportunity to say "I'm not one of them" would mean you get to come out on top even though your nomination failed, rather than just allowing the nomination to run a week and failing anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

hi...can you please tell me why you reverted my edit? You didn't leave any explanation. Thanks.Justbean (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Justbean: Hi. It was a long string of changes all done in one big edit, and a quick review showed at least some of it was VERY problematic. I had no time to look at each part individually, so did a global undo. Some of the most problematic issues were that you added material without citations, including the long addition to the end of the Origins section. As well as this tabloid-like material: "...and Schucman was married, but was rumored to have been in love with Thetford, who was believed to have been gay." RobP (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Thanks for the reply! And for the clarity :) I thought I cited everything...will go back and take a look. Most of the info came from the LA Times. The other source was People Magazine...I've seen it used as a source a lot, didn't think it'd be an issue. Will take another look. Again...thanks!Justbean (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Netflix miniseries Unorthodox was inspired by Deborah Feldman's memoir Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots), 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.

Hello @Lee Vilenski: Can you answer this question?

Hi there, Rp2006. As you've shown interest in some of my recent article assessments, I thought I would look at some of your own work. I must say your detailed, well researched biographies are pretty impressive. As you will see, I've upgraded those deserving better ratings. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Well thank you! Rp2006 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the change to 'self-proclaimed'. You're right. It's better - and more accurate. However, it clashes with the word 'claimed' which I use just before it. I might alter that, just to make it less....you know. If you get there first, feel free. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

OK... I changed claimed to a synonym so it will read better. RobP (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Good job. No need for an edit block, though. I think we're on the same side here. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		WikiProject Notification

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In case you still are interested in that article, I recently replied to you at Talk:Quantum biology. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks. Will take a look and respond if appropriate. RobP (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Canine cancer detection has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering what your thinking is about the flags on this article? It would be helpful if you added your thoughts to the talk page. I am trying to fix it up and looking for as much sensible advice as possible.Realitylink (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a look here and saw nothing obvious. RobP (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We don’t in-line American per wp:overlink. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F864:46D5:206E:4DA0 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On 11 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simone Gold, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold participated in the storming of the U.S. Capitol? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Simone Gold), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

@Maile66: Hey... I created the page for America's Frontline Doctors, the org started by Gold, but not the Gold article. I did edit it, but that's the extent of my involvement. So I am curious as to why I got this DYK notification. @Kmburke5: was the original editor. RobP (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your DYK hook about anti-vaccine activist Simone Gold drew 10,996 page views (916 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cbl62: As noted directly above, I had little to do with this page. Can you explain why I was notified and then congratulated? RobP (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The DYK submission template (Template:Did you know nominations/Simone Gold) identified you as one of the articles creators. That is why you received the two notifications. I apologize for any inconvenience. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are reverting someone to put your edit back on an article a second time, I would generally recommend checking the article's talk page to see their comments there before performing the revert, as opposed to after (as you have done on Craig Hamilton-Parker). jp×g 03:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

sorry about the typos--I'll redo it when I've got some sleep -- but Thanks for notifying me. I need people to notice when I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you but could you add a note of explanation on the talk page? Madelyne Tolentino didn't claim to see the creature until August. The first reports were in March. Again, not arguing just asking for clarification Wickedjacob (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

retracted I understand my confusion now. reports of mutilation vs. report of seeing the creature. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind if I made some edits to the article that I recommended at the AfD? Not sure when I'll get to it, but thought I'd ask. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Of course not. Thanks for asking! RobP (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! You reverted my edit to the Landsat 6 page, writing: Citations cannot be to other WP pages… but I had not added citations to Wikipedia pages.

There were two citation needed labels, one on The Enhanced Thematic Mapper was designed and manufactured by Santa Barbara Research Center., and the other on Landsat 6 was launched aboard a Titan II launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base on October 5, 1993.. Both of these facts are documented on the official Landsat website, which was already linked to but using an archived link instead of the current version of the page – which still documents these facts. Isn't that what we want here? You put back an old version of the page, on a non-WaybackMachine archive site, removed the two citations I had taken care of documenting, and commented "Citations cannot be to other WP pages" when nothing of the sort had been done here.

We are unfortunately back to an article with to requested citations when a live and current page for the Landsat 6 program documents these facts.

I don't understand this revert, and the seemingly off-topic note about citing WP pages. Please explain how this was wrong and how this was citing "other WP pages". Nffwp (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The article NZ Skeptics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability asserted by sources, almost entirely SPS or partisan.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Placing this here as a matter of record: The above user was banned for 3 months from ANI for disruptive editing there (as well perhaps due to trying to speedy delete skeptic-themed articles inappropriately). Rp2006 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ScottishFinnishRadish. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Thomas John Flanagan, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The source makes no mention of pleading to a felony, or being convicted of a felony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I used the source from the article main text about the fellony... I will double check if it is in error. RobP (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You are in error. Good job. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. Except for you I guess - except when you misrepresented why you made that edit, making no mention of the citation being insufficient (which would have made sense), but just that old news doesn't belong in the lead (wrong) ("undue for lead. Single issue over a decade ago."). RobP (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at the page history, where I removed it from the article body. I made it clear I was removing the felony information based on BLP grounds. I make plenty of mistakes, and try to apologize for them. It happens. I still disagree that a 10 year old conviction with almost no coverage is due for the lead, but that's a separate issue entirely. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "SPS from a non RS is not appropriate on WP"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader of Thiaoouba Prophecy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Bringing it to the article's Talk though. Rp2006 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Rp2006. Thanks for your edits at Havana syndrome. One of your edits, this one, appears to me as a violation of your topic ban. I think it's reasonable to think that Bartholomew is "associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed". Any chance I can convince you to self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Due to the construction of the statement "...from edits related to living people ..." (where living people links to the definition of a BLP) I had assumed I was not able to edit the BLP article of people in this (broad) category, and not that this applied MUCH more broadly to me making an improvement to a page where such a person is mentioned. Am I wrong? If so, I need more clarification. For example, if a scientist is quoted in the NYT, am I not permitted to add anything to any article at all using that info? That seems out of bounds of the issues discussed in the ArbCom which all involved edits to a few BLP pages. Regarding this edit itself, in my opinion, the description given was not applicable to why RB was cited here, so I exchanged it for a more applicable description from his page. Do you disagree with that assessment? Rp2006 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A reasonable question. I'll share my opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification from one of the enacting admins. It might be wise to self-revert while waiting on an answer.

Much of the DS-related language uses an "articles about" and "edits related to" framing. The point is to cover both articles primarily about the topic area and related edits in other articles. I think the "edits related to" in your TBAN evokes this language, which is present in slightly different terms at WP:BLPDS. So, yes, I see the TBAN in broad terms.

To be clear, I think your edit was a clear improvement, and I might as well tell you that I intend to re-add it if you self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: It's a deal. Done. Rp2006 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with negotiating your TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Just as a note on this, it'll apply on talk pages, noticeboard discussions, or anywhere else. Sorry to drop in, but I wouldn't want to see you stumble into an issue due the line. Also, thanks FFF for bringing this to their talk page before any shenanigans could happen. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you self-reverted another one, and I took a look at it, and the source does support the prose. But the two are so fond of each other that Boghossian wrote the foreword to one of Molyneux’s books, while Molyneux provides a promotional blurb for Boghossian’s book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rp2006. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Hey! Did you get the email I sent several weeks ago as a reply? Rp2006 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to self revert this edit, which is a violation of your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And how is referring to a Wiki page as an example of something existing on WP (in a talk comment on another article) a violation? Rp2006 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Because you're referring to a BLP associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. And the topic ban is from any edit related to BLPs associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of civility I will revert, but the “broadly construed” and “related to” wording of that ban was and is a recipe for over-constraining my edits to the point of ridiculousness beyond all reason. In other words, the line in the sand drawn by those ambiguous phrases is very fuzzy, and that fact unfairly restrains what I can do. Rp2006 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not that fuzzy, just don't make any edit that mentions, or is related to, any living person or person that had recently died associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism. Something like There are also no such things as Psychics and Mediums:, yet many of the bios for such people persist in defining those claiming to be such as exactly that. Just one example: Thomas John (medium) ticks all of the boxes. It is an edit about a biography of a living person who claims they are a psychic. It's not even a borderline case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I know you don’t think the terms of this are fuzzy… Let me tell you why I do. Here’s an example… It turns out I am the original creator of the TJ article - as is mentioned on my own user page. So according to you, if I make an edit in the area where I’m talking about that page on my own page, I am in violation. In fact, if I link to it right here on my talk page, just to make it clear what page we’re talking about (as you just did), according to you that’s a violation too I presume. Rp2006 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing in the area near a pre-existing mention wouldn't be a violation. Linking to your own user page is fine if you're not specifically mentioning a BLP associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism. Making an edit where you specifically mention biographies of people who are of interest to scientific skepticism, then link to one of those articles, definitely is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of all this, I appreciate you self reverting. If you have any questions about the extent of your topic ban, asking for clarification is exempt. There are plenty of administrators you can reach out to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rp2006. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert! Rp2006 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rp! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: OK. I have reverted! But the podcast does indeed belong! It contains a recent interview by the data scientist knowledgeable about Missing 411, on a podcast run by a WP Notable skeptic, and the conspiracy theory is discussed in great detail. So why do you think you would not keep it? Rp2006 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Rp. I don't oppose adding the podcast. I just haven't looked into it. I worry that discussing it here further is unwise.

FYI, the ping didn't work, even with you re-signing the comment. I recommend using one of the methods in H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the page was created as someone trying to do promotion for the film in 2020 (seriously that first page is just promotional ad copied in). It was not released until this year because Fox was acquired by Disney and then Ballard's group went out to find a new distributor. 73.115.150.77 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Rp2006 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey so I saw your deletion tag for Cortex (journal). I removed it after adding two citations and adding a reference. In the future, I'd recommend adding a maintenance tag requesting additional sources rather than immediately jumping to deletion. The page clearly met the basic notability criteria for an academic journal. Mason (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Lucky Girl syndrome has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Lucky Girl syndrome until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This and this are both topic ban violations. Have you thought about appealing your topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that editing something in my own sandbox is a violation, and adding a page to a project I am a part of is a violation? Rp2006 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. WP:TBAN lays it out pretty clearly. It applies everywhere. And adding wikiproject skepticism to the talk page of a BLP is pretty much a crystal clear violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

These statements seems SO counterintuitive -- esp the bit about editing in one's own sandbox -- that I need you to supply a clearer citation (not just "pretty clearly") for both before I could believe them. Rp2006 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TBAN, the banning policy says: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".

A talk page of an article about a living person who is of interest to the skeptical community is a page broadly related to your topic ban, especially as your were marking them as of interest to the skeptical community. The same applies to your sandbox, which is covered by all pages (not only articles). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would submit that if the intent is to cover EVEN non-public pages such as a sandbox, that should be specifically listed to make it clear. In any case, I no longer need that sandbox so I will delete it. And it seems someone (coincidently?) reverted my addition of that other page to the project, although their reason strikes me as ludicrous in the extreme.Rp2006 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Rp. Further down in WP:TBAN, sandboxes are mentioned explicitly. There's much about being banned that is counterintuitive, but you really need to understand the terms of your own sanction and ask questions if you're unsure. I'm speaking as someone who hopes to see a successful future appeal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

So sandbox is referenced there... Well thanks for pointing it out. I still think it's a crazy policy... And the problem with it is: it's not a published page so I could have just changed the name on it to a name not of interest "broadly construed" to the skeptical community and repurposed the page -- even to a topic and not a BLP - w/o anyone caring. But just adding a comment there leaving the current name as the title turns into a violation. How does THAT make any sense? Oh, now I am wondering if doing the edit on the page to add the deletion request is also technically a violation and needs to be reverted?) Rp2006 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's all a bit behind us now, but in general I wouldn't (as an admin) worry about edits that are clearly more about disengagement from a topic (blanking, deletion, etc.) than further engagement with it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)