User talk:Rgfolsom

License tagging for Image:Elliott chart.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Elliott chart.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Shooting first?

Wikipedia's Deletion policy regarding lag times calls for about a week before taking a page down. You summarily removed Robert Prechter's biography article without so much as identifying what part of the article may be in copyright violation, and you also failed to list the article on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Shooting first and asking questions later is hardly cordial and respectful to other editors, so I politely ask that you immediately make that article accessible, so I and other editors can address problems with the text.

Rgfolsom 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not (and cannot) remove any page ... I merely tagged it, citing a copyrighted Web page (probably from Robert Prechter's site) that some other user had already identified ... and that was after someone had removed that user's tag. All I did was flag it again, and an administrator decided to delete it, probably after reviewing the edit history of the page, just as I had. Take it up with them, not me, because I have neither the authority nor the tools to do anything about it ... no anonymous user does, so don't bother me about this matter again. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

When including a citation, it is not enough to say "New York Times 11 August 2002", as that is not enough information to find a single article in a large newspaper. Please include at the very least the title of the article, and ideally the author of the article and the page number. Thank you. Gamaliel 21:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being on the lookout, though the citation is more than just the date and source -- I made it a link that goes the Times' bestseller list archive, which displays the relevant information.

Rgfolsom 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is useful, but only to a point. Not all users are subscribed to the Times Select pay service and you should provide an article title for those users who access the Times through other means (Lexis/Nexis, microfilm, etc.) or if the link becomes broken in the future. Gamaliel 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I edited the citation to include where in that NYT issue a user can find the info. As for your comment about references on Prechter's bio, I intend to provide those and I said as much in a comment of my own. Check my history and I trust you'll agree that I've been careful to source my contributions. Thanks.

Rgfolsom 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work improving the Prechter article. It's in much better shape now. Gamaliel 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging word. I intend to make further additions and improvements to that page.

Rgfolsom 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

R.G., you do need to deal with the fact that as a Prechter employee and/or ally, you are the worst possible editor for Prechter articles. No matter what you feel, that fact poisons every discussion you have about Prechter-related articles. I am not going to get as toxic as Smallbones about it, but I've got to be blunt here: read the lengthy articl Canary posted, and more important: read the Wiki core articles he linked it to. Then help us edit some useful information where you don't have a conflict of interest. (If you're stumped for subjects, click the "random article" link and see what comes up!) --Orange Mike 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem

Thanks for the note. No apology necessary. This kind of thing happens all the time. Bucketsofg 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this same point, I think that your editing out of my name and replacing it with "administrators" mischaracterizes the decision: this part of the Marsden decision wasn't criticizing Bearcat and me as administrators, but as editors. You might consider replacing "administrators" with "editors" there. (I'm still not convinced the Marsden decision is helpful. The problem--in my opinion, which of course is shaped by being a party--was that reliable sources only existed for negative material, which meant that the article looked like a hachet job. In the case of the Prechter article, both positive and negative material is available and the question is about balance.) Bucketsofg 20:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a very big deal, whether you refer to me by name or as an editor, especially since you are making your case before the arbitration committee, who knew what they were thinking when they gave that instruction. Yes, there were some aspects of the case that involved me as an admin. But when the arbcomm called on me to adhere to a certain intrepretation of BLP, they were instructing me to edit in that way. Since your point is, if I understand it correctly, that other editors should abide by that principle, I should either be named or called an editor, in my judgement. (I still don't think the principle is relevant, but I guess we'll have to disagree about that.) Bucketsofg 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, it's a wiki!

Thanks for your note, Rg. Moving off-topic discussions to the talk page is sometimes done on AFDs, so I'm not going to move them back. But this is a wiki, so if you disagree with my changes, change them back or convince someone else to do so. Or perhaps create a link to the moved discussion. Etc., etc. Semperf 17:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batchelor-Ramyar article

A reference to Batchelor-Ramyar might be appropriate to the Elliot Wave article, but I'm not convinced either that article, or Prechter's rebuttal, meet the standard of reliable sources: both are self-"published". Semperf 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Socionomics AfD

Hello rgfolsom,

Sorry to see that the AfD re: socionomics succeeded. You fought ably and convincingly. Wikipedia is worse off for having lost the content.

Also sorry to see that my useraccount became a liability. I guess I should have seen that coming, but I simply did not.

By the way, I am considering filing a RfUC to clear my username of suspicion. I don’t know if they would take the case, but at the moment I feel it’s important to try.

Having said that, I am tired. After just a few months, I may just throw in the towel on this whole wiki experiment. Great idea, and I’m an idealist who would love to see it work. But it’s got too much stacked against it, including powerful forces within human nature itself.

For example, the other day my oldest – a senior, top 1% of her class, a great kid – came home and told me a story. She was online researching Billy Collins during her poetry class. She read something, then called out to her teacher. “Mrs. XXXXX, did you know Billy Collins toured with (such-and-such) rap group?” The teacher said, “No, I didn’t,” came over, and looked at the reference. “Hmmm, I guess so,” said the teacher. The class erupted, and everyone suddenly wanted my daughter’s ultra-cool poet for their project. Yup, Wikipedia. The next day the reference was gone.

So now we have to warn our kids about one more danger: Wikipedia. As I told my daughter, “It is not an encyclopedia. It is a message board disguised as an encyclopedia. Use it for ideas, not for information.”

Not to discourage your efforts, rgfolsom. But I, for one, am going to spend less time on a project where even the best-intentioned efforts are so readily questioned and, ultimately, thwarted.

On to other things!

MarkA12

OK, I gave it a shot. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/WP:RFCU#Outstanding_requests.

All the best,

--MarkA12 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

This diff compares your most recent edit to the previous-but-one (also yours). It shows that, yes, you did make minor changes in addition to the revert. That is, nonetheless, a revert as defined at WP:REVERT. Out of respect to your fellow editors, you should mark your reverts as reverts. Semperf 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure that when you revert, you identify it as a revert. Thanks. Semperf 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colvin quote in Prechter article

I am trying to maintain a truly neutral stance here. The Colvin quote, in my opinion, is NOT outside the boundaries of reasonable discourse. It is a harsh criticism, but is useful there to balance the generally favorable tone of most of the article. The heading is "Criticism" not "Minor quibbles." --Orange Mike 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Technical analysis article

Hello and thank you for contacting me. I've downgraded protection to Technical analysis to semi-protection, which means that unregistered users (and registered users whose accounts are less than 4-days old) are currently unable to edit it. That should be effective against sockpuppet disruption. Best regards, Hús ö nd 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Theorist_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Theorist_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Theorist_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theorist_cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Theorist_logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Theorist_logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Videmus, thanks for notifying me about Image:Theorist_logo.jpg. I've used a new tag and included the information you mentioned, so please have a look again and let me know if this satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 01:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Theorist cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Theorist cover.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical analysis

Your unmerited threats of an arbitration proceeding lead me to believe that a WP:3RR warning is superfluous, but I don't want there to be any dispute that you were issued one for edit-warring. Please stop reverting legitimate tags that accurately indicate there is a dispute on the talk page. THF 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Greenspan quote, please review WP:SYN, a subset of the WP:NOR policy. It's inappropriate to synthesize material to come to conclusions that were not stated by a reliable source. THF 00:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith leave you forfeit of any right to quote policy to me. Do not post to my talk page again.--Rgfolsom 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've broken the 3RR rule at Technical analysis. I've filed a report at the appropriate page. Ministry of random walks 19:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of random walks filed a 3RR report regarding your recent edits to the page technical analysis. If you reverted edits to that page four or more times within a period of 24 hours then you have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule. The best course of action to take in this case is to self-revert to the previous version of the page and discuss the editing dispute on the article talkpage. If you feel you did not violate the 3RR rule then you may post here. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talkpage. Perspicacite 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked 8 hours for violating the three-revert rule at technical analysis. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you wish to request that the situation be reviewed by another administrator, please place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your email ~ Anthøny (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Email clarification: some reverts were the result of consensus amongst editors on that page. As such, they do not count as the 4+ reverts needed for a violation, and WP:3RR has not been broken ~ Anthøny (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Anthøny (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.168.200.43 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 8 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re socionomics afd

I also put a keep recommendation earlier on in the discussion. My bit of advise to you is to go easy on trying to refute every arguement by those opposed to your point of view. In the case of the afd, save up and respond only once with a reasoned arguement. The content of the article isn't the issue, it is fully wether the subject is notable enough to keep. Good luck. --Rocksanddirt 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ministry of random walks 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:JBF tbl2 png24a.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:JBF tbl2 png24a.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

I know we've had our disagreements, but you may be interested in the discussions of possible changes to the COI guidelines, that may have repercussions on all editors' ability to edit articles (or even to discuss on talk pages) within their field of expertise. You may wish to provide input on how such guideline changes will affect editors. THF 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:JBFcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JBFcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minyanville

Fair enough. Thanks for volunteering for the rewrite. I hope we can get it up to snuff - please remember that references on Minyanville's website do not meet WP:RELIABLE. That was the main reason I tagged it - I started to edit out the promotional language, when I started removing the items that were referenced to Minyanville's website, I found there wasn't much of an article left. So all references that are on that site must be removed and other reliable published sources must be used.

I'm also concerned about Todd Harrison's article - a lot of Miyanville references are being used there as well. Can you take a look at that as well, seeing as you are apparently familiar with the subject?

Appreciate it - and thanks for the civility - it seems to be a rare commodity these days.

Regards, --Manway (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! GREAT job on the rewrite so far. Talk about cutting through the BS and getting to the encyclopedic heart of the matter! And even the one minyanville.com reference is properly used. Impressive. --Manway (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of CMT Association

The article CMT Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, run of the mill business organization, with little to no reliable sources found to establish any prominence.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tinton5 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CMT Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CMT Association 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/CMT Association 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.

Tinton5 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]