![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hi Robert. These edits pretty much summarized your point:
Let me paraphrase and complement:
http://www.wordcounter.net/ counts 37 words. Now we first have to wait till the two RfC's and the ANI-thread are closed, and then we can post it. Sigh... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... So... But...
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, just a suggestion, but if you want to understand Buddhist ideas as they are understood by contemporary Buddhists, have you thought of finding a good teacher? The ideas are hard to understand from books. The problem is, that we come with various pre-conceptions, and especially so if brought up in the West, concepts that are so ingrained we can't even see them easily. If you find a teacher, a good one, authorized to teach in a recognized lineage, so that his teacher has recognized him as someone who has understood the Buddhist teachings sufficiently well to teach them - then he will challenge you in many ways. Will be able to pick out things you may need to look into more carefully. There are many traditions and ways of teaching of course, and some practitioners don't need an intellectual approach - but for you, as for me, you would need to find a good Buddhist scholar / teacher who is able to explain the detailed teachings on a refined and intellectual level. But there are many such. And doesn't mean you have to believe what they say of course, that's not the aim at all, but to help you to work through the ideas yourself, but with the extra perspective and challenges that come from having someone else teaching you.
And of course, can also be many teachers, e.g. a teacher in each of the main schools of Buddhism if you have the capability to do such.
Just a thought. Maybe you have already considered it, or maybe you already have such a teacher? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So, this is the full quote of yours:
Are we on to something here? For nonself and nirvana, there are separate articles. But for "karma and predestination", I'm sure there must be very good literature on it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha! That's one:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes! This one's cool:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A friend on facebook has just suggested I go through the draft notice and say what specific guidelines each of the issues listed violates. So here it is:
User_talk:Dorje108#Dispute_overview
May make it clearer why it is that we wanted to take the case to the DRN and ask for more advice.
I don't want to spend so much time arguing details of the articles. The aim is to protect NPOV and the core policies of wikipedia.
If we had a roll back and discussion with the other editors then that could take its course and I would then be happy to step back at that point, and see the outcome, whatever it was, of considered debate by experienced editors, and consensus decisions about the articles. I never felt any need at all to get involved in any of these articles before his rewrites, as they were in good hands. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Good! By the way, I still love the photograph of you. It's great. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've just been working on some ideas for shortening my comments. Have put a draft into my user space. If anyone is interested click here.
Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article) because Wikipedia is not a forum.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Result was no outcome and as mentioned above, I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future. Robert Walker ( talk) 20:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft for the article here: Present day habitability of Mars. Should make it clearer what the proposal is. When it is in a more complete state I can submit it for review. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as
your addition to
Talk:Anatta can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Translations are primary sources. There is no doubt about it. This has nothing to do with the Rfc. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop harassing me. I already warned you three times today
diff
diff
diff; one more time, and you're back at ANI.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
19:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is WP:ARBIPA.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.Tendentious editing about the ancient history of India is subject to discretionary sanctions just like tendentious editing about the modern history of India. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal has been auto archived by a bot due to 36 hours of inactivity, which apparently means that nobody can comment on it or act on it. See [2].
This means we are once more a "go" for the DRN notice (it is not permitted to do it when there is any outstanding related action on other notice boards).
However, I think that as a precaution, it's probably best for the time being (until the DRN notice), if I avoid the pages for the proposed ban (all pages on India, Buddhism and Hinduism), as far as possible.
Also since they proposed an interaction ban with JJ, I think it is a sensible precaution to avoid all conversations where he has taken part, and to avoid pages he has posted to as well, as far as possible.
Of course, I can't avoid posting to my own talk page but won't respond to any of his posts here, or threads he takes part in, for the time being.
Nothing personal. Just seems a sensible precaution to make sure I provide no cause for future ANI actions that might delay the notice further, or any cause to restart the archived ANI action.
I thought best to post a brief message about this so that the situation is clear. And if necessary will post similar brief messages to explain why I am no longer taking part in other conversations. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban
I really don't like to propose this, but there is a lot of unease about a one-way interaction ban, and the stalking of his edits is clear from the way that you showed up out of nowhere in a discussion that you had not been involved in. My advice would be either that you could voluntarily agree to accept all of the inconvenience on yourself of a one-way interaction ban in order to avoid a site ban, or that you could actually explain concisely and plausibly how you showed up at a thread in which you had previously had no interest. That would permit you to continue to edit articles on space exploration, where User:Joshua Jonathan is not involved. On the other hand, what will probably happen is that you will choose to say nothing for now and hope that the proposal gets archived quietly, and then pop up again in about a month and complain about something else. Your call. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Your DRN Notice doesn't make sense. Before Dorje108 edited the article, the editors were trying to get featured article status. Then Dorje108 came along and deleted academic material. You can compare the version before he started editing to his last revision. Dorje108 himself admits that his complaint is that Joshua Jonathan reversed his edits. So to refer to Dorje108's version as the "mature article" reeks of ownership behavior, not to mention being utter nonsense. Basically you and Dorje108 exhibit ownership behavior. In your minds you can edit an article all you want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since you stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers and even other Wikis, which mirrors your nonunderstanding of Buddhism and Wikipedia policy. Also Dorje108 might not be aware that I strongly complained about his edits long before any of these disputes. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Robert, it's very kind of you to check my edits on close paraphrasing, but serious: isn't there anything else you can do here at Wikipedia? Your latest 2,000+ edits are concerned with me, except for an intermezzo on Mars. I know you're following me around, but this is weird. FYI: I've also informed Robert McClenon and Drmies on this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
You deserve half-a Barnstar for this! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
From
User:Robertinventor/Short alert, I see that you are abandoning your DRN and RFC dispute resolution attempts for the Buddhist-related articles. Per
WP:POLEMIC, [t]he compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
Since you will not be pursuing dispute resolution, your DRN and RFC sub-pages must therefore all be deleted. To do this, simply put {{Db-u1}} (this is a tag requesting speedy deletion of a page in user space at the request of that user; see
WP:U1) at the top of each page to be deleted and they will be speedily deleted a short time later. If you do not delete them yourself then any editor may nominate them for deletion but of course it's better that you do this. It would be a good idea to delete the alerts as well since posting them could be considered harassment and keeping them is also a violation of
WP:POLEMIC. Good luck!
Ca2james (
talk)
21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The main thing is that it is JJ's use of BRDR that caused the issue originally. It's because we can't reverse his edits and go through normal methods of discussion that the issue arose. So that's why the issue of BRDR has to be covered. The other points raised in our draft notice are his POV sections based on Carol Anderson's book, only a single view at one end of the spectrum in a complex debate, and many individual issues with the edits which other editors would not have agreed to if they had gone through normal processes of discussion on the talk page first, such as deleting many sections of the previous articles without discussion. So - if you remove all mention of BRDR and remove all mention of his actions of deleting sections of the previous articles and the ways that his edits violate the guidelines in our view - there is nothing left to submit, it is to just accept his edits as a "fait accomplis" from the get go. That's why I feel we have to discuss editor history - I don't understand how it could be possible to do it any other way. And after all the wikipedia guidelines on major edits are clear enough, that they should be discussed first with other editors to check for consensus before proceeding.
For one reason or another, and I totally accept that it may be that the fault is entirely with me, but I just don't feel that you are an editor I can work with to help see the way forward for resolving this issue. I found you helpful with the Mars dispute earlier. But though I appreciate your offer to help, I feel we don't have the easy relaxed dialog that is needed in a situation like this. And you have also voted to both site ban and topic ban me also, and in both cases you didn't attempt a discussion of the issues with me personally either privately or on the talk pages, or ask me for my side of the story. I just don't feel you are neutral and uninvolved, or if you were, after voting to topic ban and site ban me in an ANI action, I don't see how you can still be considered a neutral uninvolved party who is in a position to give us impartial advice. And if you are, still, it doesn't seem we can work together on this for whatever reason. I agree that we don't seem to have much of an idea of how to resolve the issue yet. I appreciate the good intentions behind your offer to help us. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ca2James, I deleted those questions on reflection because I thought they might be taken as harassment, not intended but was concerned they would be understood that way so removed them right away. How then are we to present our case - that we want to reinstate deleted sections and restore the rewritten ledes and so forth if we are not permmitted to say that another editor removed them? I just don't understand how it could be presented without mentioning JJs editing practices, his use of BRDR and the failure of attempts to reinsert deleted content. There would be no reason to take it to DRN at all then - seems you are saying we must leave out all mention of the things that are the reason for the dispute in the first place. And I'm sure that other notices taken to DRN mention the conduct of other editors and there is nothing on the page as far as I say to say that you must not mention user conduct by other editors. I just don't get why you all say that we mustn't mention his previous actions on the articles.
Joshua Jonathan, On FNT in Zen Buddhism: The Zen philosophy is based on ‘The Four Noble Truths’ as formulated by Buddha:, Zen Basics according to International Zen Association UK.
It's been my experience in Tibetan Buddhism also that many teachers in the West don't use the FNT as a basis in the way they present the teachings. You can study Tibetan Buddhism here for years as a practitioner before it is even mentioned. Lots of teachings on compassion, on dealing with negative emotions etc, on emptiness, on how to meditate, but rare to talk about the FNT. It is of course fundamental to all the other teachings but it is rarely mentioned for some reason. I'm not sure why that is.
But that doesn't make them any less central to Tibetan Buddhism.
Also the Zen tradition - I've not been to many teachings, just a couple or so on Korean Zen - but understand it is strongly sutra based as all the traditions - the sutras ground their approach and make it legitimate - but as I understand it - don't use the sutras as a basis for teaching in the way the others do, with a strong focus on zazen and direct experience.
But the FNT are still fundamental to their approach - as I understand it and as surely someone like Kstigarbha would confirm.
We never said that the material on Anderson's work has to be removed, but that it has to be balanced by material on all the other views as well as criticisms of it. As to whether the sections you removed should be quotes or paraphrases that was a matter of discussion. But you frequently use large numbers of quotes in your versions of the articles also - I've seen articles by you that are almost entirely quotes with hardly any text at all. Quotes have their place. We gave many reasons why this was a suitable place to use quotes. Mainly that they are matters not easy to summarize and to present, and that often the carefully chosen words of an expert who has spent their life on the topic, presented as a quote, is better than a paraphrase of the same words by a wikipedia editor. So long as you follow the guidelines on quotes to make sure that the quote is introduced properly and the section is not just a quote and nothing else.
At any rate whatever the decision there, as Andi said - Bold,revert,discuss - conclusions from the past days of discussion.
"Also, from the extensive discussions of the past few days here and there and here and on this very page, it should be clear that there is at least no consensus justifying your mass deletion of content on the grounds of WP:RS or the classification of quotes as primary sources.
Also the overuse of quotes in general cannot be a justification for this massive deletion of well-sourced content. As i said earlier: In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether."
Ca2James, I understand your point about the new versions being easier to read, but unfortunately they achieve that through over simplification and also in some cases especially the FNT, through OR content presented as the teachings of the Buddha. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
How then are we to present our case - that we want to reinstate deleted sections and restore the rewritten ledes and so forth if we are not permmitted to say that another editor removed them?Of course you can say that the material was removed. But for the DRN, you don't need to say more than, "this article was rewritten (here) and a group of us consider the changes to be OR. After some back and forth between us and the other editor and his supporters, it became clear that we all need help reaching a compromise. Ideally we want the changes to be rolled back." Note the complete lack of discussion about anyone's conduct there. For an RfC, in an ideal world, you and JJ would be able to work out neutral wording the asks whatever you want it to ask. You could ask "Should this article be rolled back to (previous version)?" Then with your !vote you could briefly say that you think the current version is OR. Again, you can say that someone rewrote the article but you must not delve into brdr or any of the things you consider to be JJs conduct issues because RfCis about content, not conduct.
.
Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more, or if you'd be interested in taking part remotely! Lirazelf ( talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:DLR Lichens.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DLR Lichens.jpeg. 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:
{{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.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
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. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Fumarole near the lower Erebus hut.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:
{{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.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
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. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IceMole test at Blood Falls.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)User:Stefan2, I've posted on the talk page for the guidelines on non free use suggesting clarification of the guidelines. Because it wasn't at all clear to me that photographs of rare hard to access geological phenomena and species included with permission from the author are not permitted here. See Clarification of "Could be created". And it seems that many people are uploading photographs that get deleted, so it may save everyone some time if the guidelines were clearer, if this is indeed what is intended.
As I say there, I don't understand the reasoning. What is the benefit to wikipedia of deleting non free photographs included with permission of the photographer, and which can't be replaced by free images by the uploader? Nobody is going to sue wikipedia for including them, and the result is a net loss to the reader as the articles can't be illustrated.
But if this is the guideline, and it has been established over extensive debate here, then I suggest someone should add a line to the guideline saying so. I of course wouldn't have uploaded these pictures if there was a clear guideline saying that they are not acceptable here. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have spent the better part of the evening trying to sort discussion at Talk:Morgellons, and am finding that your talk page habits there impede normal discussion and make it impossible to decipher what is being said by whom. You don't sign posts, you use excessive markup, you change posts long after you've made them, you introduce wonky spacing and sections and don't follow normal indentation, and the whole talk page interaction is such a wreck because of this that I can't even decipher what discussions have been had and what has been concluded.
Further, I find that although you first came to the topic in April (only six weeks ago), there is NO ONE who has been active on that talk page for TWO YEARS who has the number of posts you have there. That is, you say "Please note, I'm not at all an advocate for this hypothesis", and yet you quickly came to dominate the talk page to an extreme degree, complicated by the lack of understanding of how to use talk, and apparently without having a minimal grasp on relevant policies and guidelines. That is not the appearance of someone who is not there to advocate for a position.
In other words, your input on that page is making article development very difficult. I can't use the word "disruption" (yet), because the talk page is such a mess I can't tell who has said what, and if all the problem is coming from you, but based on one evening of posting, I suspect most of this issue is coming from your posts.
I came to your talk to suggest that, if you are still learning talk page protocol and sourcing of medical articles, it might be easier if you picked a benign, completely uncontroversial topic. And to remember that if you can't make a point in a paragraph, it's unlikely you're going to get anyone to listen to you by filling pages with excess markup and long rants.
Yes, the page is NPOV. It looks like you created that whole section, even though your signature is no where on it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to say, the article has now been merged away. I'm not going to challenge this, as I have never found that challenging these sorts of things helps here in wikipedia, as I can imagine anyone who has followed my talk page would understand from my other recent experiences here on wikipedia.
Did my best. It seems that my talk page habits - the issues I have with incorrect levels of indentation of my posts, forgetting to sign my posts and signing them later, needing to edit and correct my posts for typos and repetition after I do them, and writing too much, have got in the way and derailed the conversation. I forgot to do a draft of my posts in user space first, which was the solution I came up with earlier this year. If only - but then the outcome might well have been the same even if I'd remembered to do that.
Anyway - it seems that the solution I came up with earlier this year to do this as a fringe science article isn't going to work. So - well I haven't got any other thoughts on the matter. I'm now going to proceed with the plan to write about it as a science blog outside of wikipedia. This is the article as it was just before it was merged away:
| Morgellons Lyme Hypothesis.
And just to say this was all done with good intentions, trying to improve wikipedia. And I'm not in any way an advocate of this hypothesis or trying to promote anything, don't know the researchers. I don't have Morgellons or know anyone with the condition, and came to this as a neutral party with no preconceptions on it at all.
Just think that it is an interesting line of scientific research - which is of course preliminary and could be refuted or confirmed, and is undoubtedly considered fringe science at present - in the first sense of valid science following the scientific method but not accepted as mainstream. But seemed to be notable enough for a mention in wikipedia.
It is not a biggy that others think it is not notable for mention here. And I learnt a lot while attempting to write a wikipedia article in this topic area. Thanks also to Ca2james for patiently discussing the issues of this article with me on the article's talk page, and for helping to clear up my various misunderstandings of the wikipedia guidelines, and helping me to get it into shape. Your work will help with my blog post at least and also help with my understanding of the guidelines for future wikipedia articles on other topics. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Robertinventor,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
08:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
|
User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Guy (
Help!)
14:47, 9 June 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)
13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Sorry to inform you, but I've proposed a topic-ban for you on Four Noble Truths. See Administrators Noticeboard#Topic ban requested. I'm sure your intentions are good, but the way you are trying to implement your ideas is unworkable. All the best, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"So I logged out of wikipedia for a week, just to forget about it. Logging back in, I find that the ANI is still in progress, logged out again and I've created this account just so I can do editing in other areas of wikipedia as a non anonymous editor until the ANI is over. I will not use this account to edit the Buddhism topic area talk pages while the ANI is in progress and will not use it to comment on the ANI. I expect to use this account mainly for editing articles in the topic areas of astronomy, physics,space science, and perhaps other areas like music and maths."
This edit is skirting the boundaries of, if not actually violating, your topic ban. You're not allowed to discuss the topic from which you are banned - or edits to the topic, or the behaviour of editors on that topic - anywhere on Wikipedia, even if you don't mention the topic by name. The point of a topic ban is to get you out of the problematic topic area and editing productively elsewhere. Attempting to "set the record straight" on another editor's changes in the problematic area is not getting out of that topic area. The fact is that while you are under a topic ban, you cannot set the record straight; you must let the topic go completely on Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to revert that edit and to not make any further similar ones. If you reply to this note, do not bring up specific edits or attempt to justify why you left that message. Any further mention of or alluding to the topic from which you are banned could result in you being taken back to ANI for violating your topic ban. Thanks. Ca2james ( talk) 23:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction has been imposed on you:
You are banned for six months from the topic of the Four Noble Truths on all pages of Wikipedia including talk
You have been sanctioned per a discussion at WP:AN
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at [ [7]], 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. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
When notifying you before, I didn't include the official template. Here it is now for completeness, and so that other admins are aware. The ban expires on 27 November, 2016. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As others have noted, your comments at Talk:Morgellons are becoming disruptive.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog ( talk) 14:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Hi Robert. These edits pretty much summarized your point:
Let me paraphrase and complement:
http://www.wordcounter.net/ counts 37 words. Now we first have to wait till the two RfC's and the ANI-thread are closed, and then we can post it. Sigh... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... So... But...
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, just a suggestion, but if you want to understand Buddhist ideas as they are understood by contemporary Buddhists, have you thought of finding a good teacher? The ideas are hard to understand from books. The problem is, that we come with various pre-conceptions, and especially so if brought up in the West, concepts that are so ingrained we can't even see them easily. If you find a teacher, a good one, authorized to teach in a recognized lineage, so that his teacher has recognized him as someone who has understood the Buddhist teachings sufficiently well to teach them - then he will challenge you in many ways. Will be able to pick out things you may need to look into more carefully. There are many traditions and ways of teaching of course, and some practitioners don't need an intellectual approach - but for you, as for me, you would need to find a good Buddhist scholar / teacher who is able to explain the detailed teachings on a refined and intellectual level. But there are many such. And doesn't mean you have to believe what they say of course, that's not the aim at all, but to help you to work through the ideas yourself, but with the extra perspective and challenges that come from having someone else teaching you.
And of course, can also be many teachers, e.g. a teacher in each of the main schools of Buddhism if you have the capability to do such.
Just a thought. Maybe you have already considered it, or maybe you already have such a teacher? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So, this is the full quote of yours:
Are we on to something here? For nonself and nirvana, there are separate articles. But for "karma and predestination", I'm sure there must be very good literature on it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Gotcha! That's one:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes! This one's cool:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A friend on facebook has just suggested I go through the draft notice and say what specific guidelines each of the issues listed violates. So here it is:
User_talk:Dorje108#Dispute_overview
May make it clearer why it is that we wanted to take the case to the DRN and ask for more advice.
I don't want to spend so much time arguing details of the articles. The aim is to protect NPOV and the core policies of wikipedia.
If we had a roll back and discussion with the other editors then that could take its course and I would then be happy to step back at that point, and see the outcome, whatever it was, of considered debate by experienced editors, and consensus decisions about the articles. I never felt any need at all to get involved in any of these articles before his rewrites, as they were in good hands. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Good! By the way, I still love the photograph of you. It's great. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've just been working on some ideas for shortening my comments. Have put a draft into my user space. If anyone is interested click here.
Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article) because Wikipedia is not a forum.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Result was no outcome and as mentioned above, I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future. Robert Walker ( talk) 20:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft for the article here: Present day habitability of Mars. Should make it clearer what the proposal is. When it is in a more complete state I can submit it for review. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as
your addition to
Talk:Anatta can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Translations are primary sources. There is no doubt about it. This has nothing to do with the Rfc. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop harassing me. I already warned you three times today
diff
diff
diff; one more time, and you're back at ANI.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
19:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is WP:ARBIPA.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary 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.Tendentious editing about the ancient history of India is subject to discretionary sanctions just like tendentious editing about the modern history of India. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposal has been auto archived by a bot due to 36 hours of inactivity, which apparently means that nobody can comment on it or act on it. See [2].
This means we are once more a "go" for the DRN notice (it is not permitted to do it when there is any outstanding related action on other notice boards).
However, I think that as a precaution, it's probably best for the time being (until the DRN notice), if I avoid the pages for the proposed ban (all pages on India, Buddhism and Hinduism), as far as possible.
Also since they proposed an interaction ban with JJ, I think it is a sensible precaution to avoid all conversations where he has taken part, and to avoid pages he has posted to as well, as far as possible.
Of course, I can't avoid posting to my own talk page but won't respond to any of his posts here, or threads he takes part in, for the time being.
Nothing personal. Just seems a sensible precaution to make sure I provide no cause for future ANI actions that might delay the notice further, or any cause to restart the archived ANI action.
I thought best to post a brief message about this so that the situation is clear. And if necessary will post similar brief messages to explain why I am no longer taking part in other conversations. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban
I really don't like to propose this, but there is a lot of unease about a one-way interaction ban, and the stalking of his edits is clear from the way that you showed up out of nowhere in a discussion that you had not been involved in. My advice would be either that you could voluntarily agree to accept all of the inconvenience on yourself of a one-way interaction ban in order to avoid a site ban, or that you could actually explain concisely and plausibly how you showed up at a thread in which you had previously had no interest. That would permit you to continue to edit articles on space exploration, where User:Joshua Jonathan is not involved. On the other hand, what will probably happen is that you will choose to say nothing for now and hope that the proposal gets archived quietly, and then pop up again in about a month and complain about something else. Your call. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Your DRN Notice doesn't make sense. Before Dorje108 edited the article, the editors were trying to get featured article status. Then Dorje108 came along and deleted academic material. You can compare the version before he started editing to his last revision. Dorje108 himself admits that his complaint is that Joshua Jonathan reversed his edits. So to refer to Dorje108's version as the "mature article" reeks of ownership behavior, not to mention being utter nonsense. Basically you and Dorje108 exhibit ownership behavior. In your minds you can edit an article all you want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since you stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers and even other Wikis, which mirrors your nonunderstanding of Buddhism and Wikipedia policy. Also Dorje108 might not be aware that I strongly complained about his edits long before any of these disputes. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Robert, it's very kind of you to check my edits on close paraphrasing, but serious: isn't there anything else you can do here at Wikipedia? Your latest 2,000+ edits are concerned with me, except for an intermezzo on Mars. I know you're following me around, but this is weird. FYI: I've also informed Robert McClenon and Drmies on this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Half Barnstar | |
You deserve half-a Barnstar for this! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
From
User:Robertinventor/Short alert, I see that you are abandoning your DRN and RFC dispute resolution attempts for the Buddhist-related articles. Per
WP:POLEMIC, [t]he compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
Since you will not be pursuing dispute resolution, your DRN and RFC sub-pages must therefore all be deleted. To do this, simply put {{Db-u1}} (this is a tag requesting speedy deletion of a page in user space at the request of that user; see
WP:U1) at the top of each page to be deleted and they will be speedily deleted a short time later. If you do not delete them yourself then any editor may nominate them for deletion but of course it's better that you do this. It would be a good idea to delete the alerts as well since posting them could be considered harassment and keeping them is also a violation of
WP:POLEMIC. Good luck!
Ca2james (
talk)
21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The main thing is that it is JJ's use of BRDR that caused the issue originally. It's because we can't reverse his edits and go through normal methods of discussion that the issue arose. So that's why the issue of BRDR has to be covered. The other points raised in our draft notice are his POV sections based on Carol Anderson's book, only a single view at one end of the spectrum in a complex debate, and many individual issues with the edits which other editors would not have agreed to if they had gone through normal processes of discussion on the talk page first, such as deleting many sections of the previous articles without discussion. So - if you remove all mention of BRDR and remove all mention of his actions of deleting sections of the previous articles and the ways that his edits violate the guidelines in our view - there is nothing left to submit, it is to just accept his edits as a "fait accomplis" from the get go. That's why I feel we have to discuss editor history - I don't understand how it could be possible to do it any other way. And after all the wikipedia guidelines on major edits are clear enough, that they should be discussed first with other editors to check for consensus before proceeding.
For one reason or another, and I totally accept that it may be that the fault is entirely with me, but I just don't feel that you are an editor I can work with to help see the way forward for resolving this issue. I found you helpful with the Mars dispute earlier. But though I appreciate your offer to help, I feel we don't have the easy relaxed dialog that is needed in a situation like this. And you have also voted to both site ban and topic ban me also, and in both cases you didn't attempt a discussion of the issues with me personally either privately or on the talk pages, or ask me for my side of the story. I just don't feel you are neutral and uninvolved, or if you were, after voting to topic ban and site ban me in an ANI action, I don't see how you can still be considered a neutral uninvolved party who is in a position to give us impartial advice. And if you are, still, it doesn't seem we can work together on this for whatever reason. I agree that we don't seem to have much of an idea of how to resolve the issue yet. I appreciate the good intentions behind your offer to help us. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ca2James, I deleted those questions on reflection because I thought they might be taken as harassment, not intended but was concerned they would be understood that way so removed them right away. How then are we to present our case - that we want to reinstate deleted sections and restore the rewritten ledes and so forth if we are not permmitted to say that another editor removed them? I just don't understand how it could be presented without mentioning JJs editing practices, his use of BRDR and the failure of attempts to reinsert deleted content. There would be no reason to take it to DRN at all then - seems you are saying we must leave out all mention of the things that are the reason for the dispute in the first place. And I'm sure that other notices taken to DRN mention the conduct of other editors and there is nothing on the page as far as I say to say that you must not mention user conduct by other editors. I just don't get why you all say that we mustn't mention his previous actions on the articles.
Joshua Jonathan, On FNT in Zen Buddhism: The Zen philosophy is based on ‘The Four Noble Truths’ as formulated by Buddha:, Zen Basics according to International Zen Association UK.
It's been my experience in Tibetan Buddhism also that many teachers in the West don't use the FNT as a basis in the way they present the teachings. You can study Tibetan Buddhism here for years as a practitioner before it is even mentioned. Lots of teachings on compassion, on dealing with negative emotions etc, on emptiness, on how to meditate, but rare to talk about the FNT. It is of course fundamental to all the other teachings but it is rarely mentioned for some reason. I'm not sure why that is.
But that doesn't make them any less central to Tibetan Buddhism.
Also the Zen tradition - I've not been to many teachings, just a couple or so on Korean Zen - but understand it is strongly sutra based as all the traditions - the sutras ground their approach and make it legitimate - but as I understand it - don't use the sutras as a basis for teaching in the way the others do, with a strong focus on zazen and direct experience.
But the FNT are still fundamental to their approach - as I understand it and as surely someone like Kstigarbha would confirm.
We never said that the material on Anderson's work has to be removed, but that it has to be balanced by material on all the other views as well as criticisms of it. As to whether the sections you removed should be quotes or paraphrases that was a matter of discussion. But you frequently use large numbers of quotes in your versions of the articles also - I've seen articles by you that are almost entirely quotes with hardly any text at all. Quotes have their place. We gave many reasons why this was a suitable place to use quotes. Mainly that they are matters not easy to summarize and to present, and that often the carefully chosen words of an expert who has spent their life on the topic, presented as a quote, is better than a paraphrase of the same words by a wikipedia editor. So long as you follow the guidelines on quotes to make sure that the quote is introduced properly and the section is not just a quote and nothing else.
At any rate whatever the decision there, as Andi said - Bold,revert,discuss - conclusions from the past days of discussion.
"Also, from the extensive discussions of the past few days here and there and here and on this very page, it should be clear that there is at least no consensus justifying your mass deletion of content on the grounds of WP:RS or the classification of quotes as primary sources.
Also the overuse of quotes in general cannot be a justification for this massive deletion of well-sourced content. As i said earlier: In any case, a good quote on an important subject is way better than leaving out the subject altogether."
Ca2James, I understand your point about the new versions being easier to read, but unfortunately they achieve that through over simplification and also in some cases especially the FNT, through OR content presented as the teachings of the Buddha. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
How then are we to present our case - that we want to reinstate deleted sections and restore the rewritten ledes and so forth if we are not permmitted to say that another editor removed them?Of course you can say that the material was removed. But for the DRN, you don't need to say more than, "this article was rewritten (here) and a group of us consider the changes to be OR. After some back and forth between us and the other editor and his supporters, it became clear that we all need help reaching a compromise. Ideally we want the changes to be rolled back." Note the complete lack of discussion about anyone's conduct there. For an RfC, in an ideal world, you and JJ would be able to work out neutral wording the asks whatever you want it to ask. You could ask "Should this article be rolled back to (previous version)?" Then with your !vote you could briefly say that you think the current version is OR. Again, you can say that someone rewrote the article but you must not delve into brdr or any of the things you consider to be JJs conduct issues because RfCis about content, not conduct.
.
Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more, or if you'd be interested in taking part remotely! Lirazelf ( talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:DLR Lichens.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DLR Lichens.jpeg. 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:
{{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.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
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. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EXPOSE-R2.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Fumarole near the lower Erebus hut.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:
{{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.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
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. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IceMole test at Blood Falls.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)User:Stefan2, I've posted on the talk page for the guidelines on non free use suggesting clarification of the guidelines. Because it wasn't at all clear to me that photographs of rare hard to access geological phenomena and species included with permission from the author are not permitted here. See Clarification of "Could be created". And it seems that many people are uploading photographs that get deleted, so it may save everyone some time if the guidelines were clearer, if this is indeed what is intended.
As I say there, I don't understand the reasoning. What is the benefit to wikipedia of deleting non free photographs included with permission of the photographer, and which can't be replaced by free images by the uploader? Nobody is going to sue wikipedia for including them, and the result is a net loss to the reader as the articles can't be illustrated.
But if this is the guideline, and it has been established over extensive debate here, then I suggest someone should add a line to the guideline saying so. I of course wouldn't have uploaded these pictures if there was a clear guideline saying that they are not acceptable here. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have spent the better part of the evening trying to sort discussion at Talk:Morgellons, and am finding that your talk page habits there impede normal discussion and make it impossible to decipher what is being said by whom. You don't sign posts, you use excessive markup, you change posts long after you've made them, you introduce wonky spacing and sections and don't follow normal indentation, and the whole talk page interaction is such a wreck because of this that I can't even decipher what discussions have been had and what has been concluded.
Further, I find that although you first came to the topic in April (only six weeks ago), there is NO ONE who has been active on that talk page for TWO YEARS who has the number of posts you have there. That is, you say "Please note, I'm not at all an advocate for this hypothesis", and yet you quickly came to dominate the talk page to an extreme degree, complicated by the lack of understanding of how to use talk, and apparently without having a minimal grasp on relevant policies and guidelines. That is not the appearance of someone who is not there to advocate for a position.
In other words, your input on that page is making article development very difficult. I can't use the word "disruption" (yet), because the talk page is such a mess I can't tell who has said what, and if all the problem is coming from you, but based on one evening of posting, I suspect most of this issue is coming from your posts.
I came to your talk to suggest that, if you are still learning talk page protocol and sourcing of medical articles, it might be easier if you picked a benign, completely uncontroversial topic. And to remember that if you can't make a point in a paragraph, it's unlikely you're going to get anyone to listen to you by filling pages with excess markup and long rants.
Yes, the page is NPOV. It looks like you created that whole section, even though your signature is no where on it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to say, the article has now been merged away. I'm not going to challenge this, as I have never found that challenging these sorts of things helps here in wikipedia, as I can imagine anyone who has followed my talk page would understand from my other recent experiences here on wikipedia.
Did my best. It seems that my talk page habits - the issues I have with incorrect levels of indentation of my posts, forgetting to sign my posts and signing them later, needing to edit and correct my posts for typos and repetition after I do them, and writing too much, have got in the way and derailed the conversation. I forgot to do a draft of my posts in user space first, which was the solution I came up with earlier this year. If only - but then the outcome might well have been the same even if I'd remembered to do that.
Anyway - it seems that the solution I came up with earlier this year to do this as a fringe science article isn't going to work. So - well I haven't got any other thoughts on the matter. I'm now going to proceed with the plan to write about it as a science blog outside of wikipedia. This is the article as it was just before it was merged away:
| Morgellons Lyme Hypothesis.
And just to say this was all done with good intentions, trying to improve wikipedia. And I'm not in any way an advocate of this hypothesis or trying to promote anything, don't know the researchers. I don't have Morgellons or know anyone with the condition, and came to this as a neutral party with no preconceptions on it at all.
Just think that it is an interesting line of scientific research - which is of course preliminary and could be refuted or confirmed, and is undoubtedly considered fringe science at present - in the first sense of valid science following the scientific method but not accepted as mainstream. But seemed to be notable enough for a mention in wikipedia.
It is not a biggy that others think it is not notable for mention here. And I learnt a lot while attempting to write a wikipedia article in this topic area. Thanks also to Ca2james for patiently discussing the issues of this article with me on the article's talk page, and for helping to clear up my various misunderstandings of the wikipedia guidelines, and helping me to get it into shape. Your work will help with my blog post at least and also help with my understanding of the guidelines for future wikipedia articles on other topics. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Robertinventor,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
08:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
|
User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Robertinventor/Charles E. Holman Morgellons Disease Foundation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Guy (
Help!)
14:47, 9 June 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)
13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Robertinventor/deleted sections from Manned mission to Mars during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Present day habitability of Mars, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Sorry to inform you, but I've proposed a topic-ban for you on Four Noble Truths. See Administrators Noticeboard#Topic ban requested. I'm sure your intentions are good, but the way you are trying to implement your ideas is unworkable. All the best, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"So I logged out of wikipedia for a week, just to forget about it. Logging back in, I find that the ANI is still in progress, logged out again and I've created this account just so I can do editing in other areas of wikipedia as a non anonymous editor until the ANI is over. I will not use this account to edit the Buddhism topic area talk pages while the ANI is in progress and will not use it to comment on the ANI. I expect to use this account mainly for editing articles in the topic areas of astronomy, physics,space science, and perhaps other areas like music and maths."
This edit is skirting the boundaries of, if not actually violating, your topic ban. You're not allowed to discuss the topic from which you are banned - or edits to the topic, or the behaviour of editors on that topic - anywhere on Wikipedia, even if you don't mention the topic by name. The point of a topic ban is to get you out of the problematic topic area and editing productively elsewhere. Attempting to "set the record straight" on another editor's changes in the problematic area is not getting out of that topic area. The fact is that while you are under a topic ban, you cannot set the record straight; you must let the topic go completely on Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to revert that edit and to not make any further similar ones. If you reply to this note, do not bring up specific edits or attempt to justify why you left that message. Any further mention of or alluding to the topic from which you are banned could result in you being taken back to ANI for violating your topic ban. Thanks. Ca2james ( talk) 23:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The following sanction has been imposed on you:
You are banned for six months from the topic of the Four Noble Truths on all pages of Wikipedia including talk
You have been sanctioned per a discussion at WP:AN
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at [ [7]], 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. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
When notifying you before, I didn't include the official template. Here it is now for completeness, and so that other admins are aware. The ban expires on 27 November, 2016. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As others have noted, your comments at Talk:Morgellons are becoming disruptive.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Jytdog ( talk) 14:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)