User talk:A.j.roberts

Thanks for uploading File:Times Good Uni Guides-Small.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Where did you find and paste that from, and what relevance does a historic Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan have with my talk page? A.j.roberts (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.Roberts, I notice that you have been around for a while but you don't have that many edits. You are probably not experienced in how things work in contentious areas. So you need to listen to experienced editors when they give advice.

"Caste system in India" is an India-related page and, so, ARBIPA sanctions apply. What that means is stated in the second paragraph of the notice. Please read it carefully.

You need to know and apply all the relevant Wikipedia policies. So, when editors cite a policy to you (often by indicating a blue link in their message), please make sure you read and understand the policy. If you don't understand the policy or how it applies in the context, please feel free to ask for explanation. You can ask the editor, or at the Teahouse or Helpdesk, or any administrator.

As a first step, please read and follow WP:BRD. Talk page discussion is the first step in resolving disputes. Only when that is exhausted can you go to WP:DRN. Only when that fails can you request Formal Mediation. Your attempt to do these things is premature, and those requests will be declined. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins SpacemanSpiff, NeilN, Vanamonde93 for any additional advice they would like to offer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.j.roberts: Kautilya has largely covered the issues here, but let me just add that ARBIPA sanctions mean that editors are on a far tighter leash on topics such as caste in India than they would be elsewhere. You need to be very careful to follow policy in all that you do, and particularly if a certain policy is pointed out to you, you need to read it carefully and abide by it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93: The article, as it stands, contains a couple of factual errors, see talk, that lean toward violating WP:NPOV, while giving "DNA/genetics are not acceptable for this article" or "Why are you citing stuff from the 1800s?" as a reason to revert attempts to correct the article, doesn't help. A.j.roberts (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Caste system in India. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Also calling non-vandalism a vandalism is personal attack, read WP:NOTVAND. Capitals00 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for this to be mediated (Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Caste_system_in_India), as giving "DNA/genetics are not acceptable for this article" as a reason to revert an edit that adds current, reputable secondary sources, summarising the latest Genetic research in to historic observation of caste laws, is little else. A.j.roberts (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Caste system in India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 December 2017. 

The request for formal mediation concerning Caste system in India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

List of Roman place names in Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Braintree

Roman sites in Great Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Braintree

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.erc.ie/1983/01/19/vol-17-1983/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t recognise that sentence, I shuffled a few existing ones around, and grabbed some from the linked Wikipedia pages, need to check the history. A.j.roberts (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, it was meant to be a quote, there’s a ref to it, “ref name=nbe” must have got distracted, and was from almost the same place: http://www.erc.ie/documents/vol17chp2.pdf, will be more careful. A.j.roberts (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I saw your edits on Timeline of scientific discoveries. Some comments:

• "Eyeglasses" seem to be more appropriate for the "Timeline of historic inventions" article.
• I don't think Roger Bacon's work should be categorized under "Optics" -- seems to be more commonly known as having to do with the philosophy of science.
• Perhaps you should more clearly describe Robert Grosseteste's work: what, specifically, were the new methods regarding the production of lenses that he discussed?
• What were the specific new laws or scientific principles that were found in Ptolemy's Optics?
• The modern (post-1800) ones are good, thanks.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps:

* Ptolemy's Optics included the first known table of refractive angles.

* Eye glasses are an invention, though one that required individually applied optical principles, to compensate for every customers specific disability (prescription). One lens doesn’t suit all.

* Bacon’s contributions to optics, and science are more to the scientific method, than any particular discovery, in verifying, and documenting how he did, the collected earlier works, and asserting, as his page quotes “theories supplied by reason should be verified by sensory data, aided by instruments, and corroborated by trustworthy witnesses"

I’ll add a few words.

A.j.roberts (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some comments:

* I have divided the stuff on the Almagest into multiple entries, in line with the convention used in the article. The refraction tables were already mentioned wrt Ptolemy's Optics.

* The cardinality of natural numbers is *not* greater than the cardinality of the even or odd numbers. This is just a mathematically false statement, and is not a scientific discovery.

* Re: Bacon, Grosseteste: right, like I said, their contributions are better categorized as "philosophy of science" than "optics". I'll make a section for it.

* Is there any evidence that early eyeglasses involved a "knowledge of human biology"?

* I agree the original leads were too long and non-objective, but they should not be removed completely. It's important to landmark specific events and historical periods of importance, like the Scientific Revolution.

I'll make some edits. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* on Eye glasses, many a source cite Roger Bacon as a source, e.g. https://www.college-optometrists.org/the-college/museum/online-exhibitions/virtual-spectacles-gallery/the-invention-of-spectacles.html Though Differentiating between short / long sightedness is attributed to Aristotle Near-sightedness#History

* on the section leads, agree, ditto for images, but they need to be non-political, and referencing actual works / progress, and depicting inventions, not contemporary artistic renderings of an inventors legend, essential no WP:PEACOCK Goldens.

* on infinities, my mistake.

A.j.roberts (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could mention Roger Bacon's possible contribution under the entry for eyeglasses. Perhaps a better source is needed though, I don't know. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look -- if you're actually interested in getting your edits through on Timeline of historic inventions, then trying to force them in while discussion is underway on the talk page isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter if you think that DONTREVERT is on your side (it's not a Wikipedia policy, BTW), but you will get reverted (because the edits are controversial, and they become intractable to check and keep up with), and you'll probably get blocked on that article for edit warring (and rightfully so). Calm down, read my proposed wording re:Skara Brae, and discuss exactly what it is you're planning to do. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per my last post to the talk page, if you can find WP:RS that demonstrate the Indus Valley offers the earliest examples of: Mudbricks, clay Mortar, Dice, Communal drains, Indoor plumbing, ... and reliable dates are offered that predate the Egyptian, Levant, Scottish, examples, I’ve added, or alternatively that the cited dates for the earlier non-Indus examples are incorrect, I’ll happily let you remove the prior work, per WP:CONSENSUS, but till then please Wikipedia:DONTREVERT, the currently cited earlier examples. A.j.roberts (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I am not claiming that the Indus Valley does offer the earliest example of any of those, I (and everyone else there) am claiming that it is uncertain, and that this uncertainty should be acknowledged. There is also no reliable date for the Skara Brae toilets, 3100 BC is the date of settlement (just like 3700 BC is for Lothal). Chan-Paton factor (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a WP:RS citation for that 3700 BCE date, you’ve now asserted twice, for the construction of the port of Lothal, as the ASI submission to UNESCO, and published on the UNESCO site sates the port was constructed c.2400 BCE. Similarly the cited, median, radio carbon dates for the contents of the Skara Brae drain are around 3000 BCE, and both those dates are widely reproduced, in reliable sources.

A.j.roberts (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not claim that the Lothal port was built 3700 BC, I claimed that the pre-Harappan culture at Lothal started in 3700 BC, and that no precise dating exists for either the Lothal port or for Skara Brae.

2. Your UNESCO source does not claim it was built 2400 BC, it claims that the Harappan culture at Lothal started in 2400 BC.

3. You have not provided a source for "the cited, median, radio carbon dates for the contents of the Skara Brae drain are around 3000 BCE".

Look -- at this point, it's getting repetitive. I'm just going to go through with the phrasings I've put up on the talk page. Comment there if you have anything new to add. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting repetitive, but if you want to substitute 3700 BC for the 2400 BC occupation date offered in the UNESCO entry, and Mario et. Al paper you will have to find a WP:RS for the Lothal dockyards construction, not a date for the Indus Civilisation, and cite it.

A.j.roberts (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, neither Mario et al nor the UNESCO entry claim that Lothal was first occupied 2400 BC, both agree on the existence of a pre-Harappan culture at the site before 2400 BC, and the only source that does attest an occupation date for Lothal (the press comment) specifies 3700 BC.

Again, there is no precise dating of the dock -- or of Skara Brae.

What part of this exactly do you not understand? Chan-Paton factor (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in that news item does not offer a date for the construction of the Lothal dockyard, or the settlement at Lothal, simply a date for habitation in the region:

“ We have found several Harappan sites, including Lothal, along the Gulf of Kutch dating back to 3700 BC.”

The UNESCO entry and Mario et. Al. Paper refer explicitly to the Lothal Dockyard, and offer dates for occupancy of Lothal; you should be looking for any WP:RS that follows this pattern, but with your preferred 3700 BC date, if you still want to substitute the present value, and assert the docks were created prior to those on the opposite side of the Indian ocean.

A.j.roberts (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The comment in that news item does not offer a date for the construction of the Lothal dockyard, or the settlement at Lothal, simply a date for habitation in the region" -- Yes, this is precisely what I am saying. A dating for the dock doesn't exist, this doesn't mean the entry should be omitted. You are ignoring objections to your edits and engaging in disruptive editing.

"The UNESCO entry and Mario et. Al. Paper refer explicitly to the Lothal Dockyard, and offer dates for occupancy of Lothal" -- this is a misleading statement. They also do not offer dates on the construction of the port, and they do not assert that Lothal was first occupied in 2400 BC.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So given those two WP:RS state the site was occupied from approximately 2400 BCE, is your 3700 BCE, or my adoption of the consensus 2400-2000 BCE dating for the construction of the Lothal Dockyard the most encyclopaedic?

A.j.roberts (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't state that. What part of this do you not understand? Chan-Paton factor (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my suggested phrasings. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of scientific discoveries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Stoddard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indo-Aryan migration, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Innishannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Architecture of Africa

added a link pointing to Ashanti

History of architecture

added a link pointing to Ashanti

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Rigveda, you may be blocked from editing. You’re using a sales site, medium.com, a paper presented to a conference, etc. it appears you do not know what a reliable source is. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, - You added F-16XL, but I really don't think it should be included. You can view the article's talk page for my reasoning, but NASA basically concluded that (in their words) it did not show "true supercruise" capability. The point of the tests did not appear to relate to supercruise primarily, and it almost certainly couldn't do M1.1 with a weapons load (never did during testing). The base F-16 (same engine) can do around M1.05 clean at the same altitude the XL did it, meaning the XL didn't actually have much more supercruise ability than the base plane. Secondly, your source doesn't even say M1.1, so if you insist on including it, please at least include the proper source: Elegance in Flight (NASA), p.144. You can find the words about "true supercruise" on p.116. HarryKernow (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yojana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Streamliner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Rail Class 43.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in one of your edits on the page Chronology of the Great Famine, you mentioned "The Belgian Government, in an attempt to solve a problem with curl and dry rot, imported seed potatoes from the United States, and had them planted at Cureghem, in West Flanders." Cureghem is a district of Anderlecht, a municipality of Brussels, and is not situated in West Flanders. Could you please check this? For clarity, I am not doubting the veracity of the sourced claim itself, simply the association between the two locations. Thanks! Jason Lagos (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cureghem is described as being in Flanders, in 1843, at least by the cited journal, and the like of: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29259077.pdf. You could stick a '"(currently part of the Brussels-Capital Region)" if you so desire. A.j.roberts (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer and for checking this further. The problem lies mostly with the term 'West Flanders', which denotes a very specific province of Belgium (the same in 1843 as today), completely separate from Brussels, where Cureghem is located. It would be like saying "At Richmond in West Virginia". I guess the Dutch author of the cited journal was not accustomed to this and probably meant rather vaguely "in the western part of Flanders". I would suggest dropping the 'West' altogether to avoid any confusion. I would be fine with "At Cureghem in Flanders (currently part of the Brussels-Capital Region)." Jason Lagos (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]