User talk:Roberttherambler

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Roberttherambler. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Please do take some time to review the information in the links above. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are new to Wikipedia and you are obviously passionate about the vaccination issue. I want to make sure you are aware of some things. First, Wikipedia is governed by a set of policies and guidelines that cover what kind of content we generate, and that also cover editor behavior. Above you were given a welcome message that introduces you to the policies and guidelines. Please take some time to read them. Please also read WP:TPG which describes how editors should conduct themselves on article Talk pages.

Some articles that are very contested, to the point where they disrupt the community over a long period of time, end up at our "supreme court" which is called Arbcom. Articles that pertain to the vaccination topic are such articles; other topics that have been to Arbcom include the israel-palestine conflict, abortion, Northern ireland, stuff that is hotly contested in the real world and can be at times in Wikipedia too.

When Arbcom takes a case and "rules" on it, Arbcom often puts in place a special set of rules for the topic, since topics that are controversial tend to remain controversial, and new editors will come along and the old problems could come back and disrupt the community yet again. These special rules are called "discretionary sanctions". What this means, is that people involved in the article need to be on their best behavior as we define that in the policies and guidelines about behavior. If they are not - if they start falling into a pattern of bad behavior like attacking other editors instead of talking simply about the content or calling for changes that are not based on the policies and guidelines we have about content, then they can be sanctioned, which includes blocks, topic bans, and other remedies.

I am providing you with formal notice of this below. Please do take this on board.

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 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 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) 04:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roberttherambler! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Westmonster requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Westmonster is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westmonster until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2017 (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 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.

I just saw that you asked me two questions there. Here are the responses, in the order in which the questions appear on the page:

1. I was addressing you and Gwillhickers (you primarily with my second point, G primarily with my first). The arguments put forth on the article and on G's talk page are creationist arguments. I did not accuse anyone of being a creationist.
2. The difference generally lies entirely in what they call themselves and their level of self-identification based on their religious views (or lack thereof). Those who call themselves atheists tend to have more of their self-identify wrapped up in their lack of religion, whereas those who call themselves agnostics tend to see their religious views as tangential to their self-identity. These are rules of thumb, based on my own experience. For the record, the accepted definition of atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not the positive belief in no god. There is quite an important distinction there. I would explain further, but I'm afraid the internet has already said everything than could be said about it. It would be trivial for you to look it up. You could even start here, with Atheism.

I've not watchlisted your page, and I have no intention of being drawn into an argument here, so if you reply, it may be a few days before I notice it. I would thank you not to ping me, and I wouldn't be offended if you simply removed these comments. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Conservapedia, the Bible is holy writ and its article should reflect that. To draw a parallel with Wikipedia, for Wikipedia mainstream science is holy writ. Wikipedia does not care about atheism, agnosticism, deism, liberal Christianity, etc., it has no such bias. But the consensus of mainstream science is our holy writ. This is the "bias" inherent in Wikipedia. It would be foolish to expect anything else of a mainstream encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a scientist but, for me, science is not holy writ. All scientific theories are provisional until the next one comes along. Science is about "thinking outside the box" and I do not accept any legalistic restraints on it. My scientific education seems to have been very different from yours. Roberttherambler (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, all scientific theories are provisional. Mainstream science changes with time. That argument has been made at WP:FLAT: if Wikipedia were available in Galileo's time, it would have reflected the mainstream science of that time as encyclopedic knowledge. So, it is a red herring that science changes. As Benjiboi put it, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roberttherambler. You have new messages at Talk: Southern Railway strike (2016-2017).
Message added 11:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teresa May (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alasdair Seton-Marsden. Since you had some involvement with the Alasdair Seton-Marsden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Whizz40 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Diesel generator into Diesel engine problems. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Roberttherambler (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best just to ignore the ravings from the IP editor: if he carries on like this he will swiftly get blocked. Your question is a reasonable one, but as there is no substantive link to the university you would have to build an independent case for the notability of Oxford Economics if you wish to create an article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alasdair Seton-Marsden. Since you had some involvement with the Alasdair Seton-Marsden redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Whizz40 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, Alasdair Seton-Marsden redirect has been pointed to Charlie Gard case and the link there removed to avoid a circular redirect. Do we really need it? I think it you requested it is deleted because it is redundant and was never used it could be. Whizz40 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, just seen there was some further discussion at [1]. In my eyes, it just seems to denote notability to his person where there is little or none. But there's not much further to add so happy to leave it. Whizz40 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still prefer to redirect to Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency) but it's not a big deal so I suggest we leave it. Roberttherambler (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thanks for replying and apologies for the duplication of discussion. Whizz40 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we first crossed paths at Vaxxed where you wanted to change the article to reflect your belief that Wakefield is not an anti-vaccine activist per your comments here and here, and you seem to have taken a disliking to me after that interaction.

What you did here and here was unwise.

You are establishing a pattern of showing up in discussions I am having and writing things that are POINTY, violate policy in one way or another, and are disruptive. This is called WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:HOUNDING behavior.

If you continue to do this, you can expect me to take action against you at ANI. Please reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't appreciate my sense of humour. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comments I diffed above are especially bad as they further confuse a good faith inexperienced user who doesn't understand Wikipedia, as you pursue whatever agenda you have against me. That is reprehensible, not funny. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote here [2] was intended to help User:Stoopormundi to present his case on the page where it would be most effective. I can't see why it would have confused him. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

after this, I will not warn you again. People who behave this way, lose privileges -- first bits, and then everything. Again, please reconsider your path here. I will not warn you again -- the next thing you see from me about this will be an ANI notice. Jytdog (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)You say "You obviously don't appreciate my sense of humor". Jokes do not belong at AfD, editing for the sake of humor is considered disruptive editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange that obscene language is permitted but humour is not. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who said obscene language was permitted? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. [3] User:RoySmith was offended by it [4] and I was offended by it. I tried to do something about it but I was immediately threatened with sanctions. If obscene language is not permitted, what can I do about it without getting sanctioned? Roberttherambler (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility. Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We have BATTLEGROUND and HOUNDING because this happens to people. One editor gets upset with someone and starts following that person around, doing dumb/disruptive things. This is a human thing; there is nothing new under the sun. What you are doing, others have done before you. What you need to do, is understand that you have a problem; you are fixated on me. If you let that fixation drive your behavior, it will be to your detriment. If you can't control yourself, the community will end up blocking you or putting a one-way interaction ban on you. Not good for you. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave others to judge who has the problem. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you read the thread on my talk page or just blasted your pile-on there, but I acknowledged there that what i did was not good for the community or for me. I am aware of that. You need to be aware of how your problem is harming you and the community. And if you continue to let it drive you, it will be bad for you. I won't write here anymore on this.

My warning to you stands though - I will not tolerate you harming other people in your pursuit of me. You should let it go but as long as it has hold of you, please be aware that you are fixated, and control it. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jokes at AfD and obscene rants are both bad, User:RoySmith handled the civility warning well, by explaining why he thought Jytdog's comments were uncivil, just "I issue you with a civility warning" is not how it is done, the essay on civility warnings DOES say this, also, why did you feel the need to warn him when he had been warned by User:RoySmith already? I could see where User:Jytdog would consider this WP:HOUNDING IF it is part of a pattern. However, I know nothing about any issues between you and User:Jytdog so I will not comment on "who has the problem". Tornado chaser (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I will leave others to judge who has the problem." I am another editor, and my judgement based on several of your recent Talk edits is that you are more interested in arguing with editors than in improving WP. Editing here at WP is a privilege, and it is appropriate for all of us to respect each other rather than attacking or trolling. It would be helpful if you would delete your arguments at Talk:Sustainable energy and elsewhere. David Spector (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my contributions page.[5] You will see I have done a lot more improving of WP than arguing with people. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done over 1,000 edits and very few of those were arguments. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved a page Curiosity, Adventure and Love

to Curiosity, Adventure & Love

and it looks like you turned it into a redirect.

I may have mishandled the move but we need to get the article back. Can you tell me what you did so I can figure out what needs to be done?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may have recovered it so there may be nothing further to do but I'm still curious what happened.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find the original article either, so I redirected it to Jessie Lichauco, who is the subject of the film. If you have found the original article, please restore it and update the redirect. Also, please see my messages at User_talk:Oshwah#Curiosity.2C_Adventure_.26_Love_page_has_gone.21_2 and User_talk:Sunshinedeleon.assistant. Roberttherambler (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is OK now. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Biscuittin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Diesel engine problems requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.auroragenerators.com/blogs/generators?page=4. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GretLomborg (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locomotives of the Stockton and Darlington Railway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GretLomborg (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Locomotives of the Hull and Barnsley Railway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locomotives of the Hull and Barnsley Railway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GretLomborg (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Edward Borrows and Sons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/e-borrows-sons/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GretLomborg (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edward Borrows and Sons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Borrows and Sons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]