User talk:RobertGustafson

One comment, one question

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions about how it all works or anything please feel free to ask me. I just have a few things I wanted to say to you.

Your edit made me want to point out that Spider-Man is the proper article title and "Spider-Man (comics)" is just a redirect to that page.
Do you know how the "Show preview" button works? Your extensive number of edits repeatedly on the same section shows that you may not, and it is helpful to everyone else editing if edits are done in as few as possible.

Keep up the good work and let me know if you don't understand what I said. Spidey104 21:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to If You Leave Me Now, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to If You Leave Me Now, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. bodnotbod (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 2112 (song), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 2112 (song). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 2112 (song), you may be blocked from editing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop re-adding comments that I have removed from my talk page, especially since you are merely copy and pasting from something written on an article talk page. It can be construed as a form of WP:HARASS. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Not Now John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wall (Pink Floyd) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited X-Men: First Class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teleport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited X-Men: First Class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On location (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Another Brick in the Wall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Wall (Pink Floyd) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. When you recently edited Counterculture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rock and Moral order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. When you recently edited Disco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queen and Tommy Tucker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Disco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queen and Tommy Tucker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

article on Chicago

I see you worked on the Chicago (band) article and wanted to give you a heads up. I edited out unsubstantiated material which may have been true but had no sources listed. I am a Chicago fan as I suspect you are, but the article should reflect Wiki policy on sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wemonk (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy can you hear me?

No welcome, no B.S., just outside tips which have worked. We’ve been there and done that, check our “contribs” to see how bad it can look. Or disregard completely, no expert opinions here.

In order to keep small edits down, some hit edit, copy the section, then paste it into Word or whatever. When it looks better, paste it back into “edit”, and use “preview” to see what it looks like. If minor work, change it in edit, if major, copy and paste into Word again. If it’s not going well, hitting “cancel” next to preview, or just closing the window, leaves the article as it was. Just remember to copy the last version before you do. No pressure on you, just try again later. And you still have it in Word, where nobody can see your screw-ups. Just don’t hit “save” until you’re happy.

Do not edit one section, edit the whole article. That way, when you “preview” you can see what the references look like, they are where some have the most trouble. One extra space can really screw you up, be especially careful where lines break. And by doing the whole article, you can copy something good somewhere else in the article, and paste it into your stuff.

Side note, are you aware that Pete has just released an autobiography named “Who I Am”? Just arrived here. Appears revisionist and self-serving, all autobiographies probably are. Who can be really objective in first person?

For what it’s worth, good luck. Sammy D III (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RobertGustafson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RobertGustafson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple editors are reverting your edits and giving explanations and you are ignoring and replacing the removed content. Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My "disruptive editing" is simply my attempt to portray the DVD and its liner notes accurately.

The package that I purchased does contain the errors that I previously mentioned. Maybe your version doesn't, maybe you're wary of offending the people who produced the DVD and its liner notes. But it's true. I know the rule "verifibility, not truth", and it's not easy to "prove" that 1 set of liner notes is flawed, but leaving out important facts can be misleading. What if a customer has a package with the same liner notes and takes them at face value before watching the "real narrative" of the film itself? This is important, given the uncanny faithfulness of the film to the book, and many people would want such a film. They might not see it if they mistakenly believed it wasn't that "accurate". Besides, the "3 big rules" of article narrative are said in Wiki's how-to instructions to be "guidelines", not absolutes. It's reasonable to make exceptions in exceptional cases. Anyway, I prefer that you debate this with me before doing a reflexive revert. Also, simply reverting an edit instead of manually editing the edit takes out the good with the bad. Even if flawed liner notes aren't worth mentioning, the disclaimer that no animals were actually harmed IS! (Maybe it should be in a different section, but once again, that's a reason to edit, not revert; you can move the disclaimer to another place.)

If you feel compelled to argue the point, PLEASE RESPOND on the article's talk page.RobertGustafson (talk)

PS. I take Wiki's rules very seriously. I wouldn't do something that others would find questionable unless I disagreed and thought it mattered.

My assertions about the DVD and the liner notes are BOTH now sourced. Isn't a <ref> enough? Must I get other sources to agree?

I have added the proper <ref> references to my statements about the DVD and the liner notes. Any person can now view the film and read the notes to "verify" my assertion. I'm a little rusty on documenting sources, but I've now included my sources--which you'd see if only you look. BTW, it's not OR to say something that is blatantly and inescapably deducible from one's sources. There's a difference between deductive inference and speculation. If source X says A and source Y says B, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the sources disagree.

Instead of asserting a "difference" between DVD and liner notes, I compare and contrast

That should pass the smell test, as both sources are reference. The readers are left to infer for themselves that there's a difference.RobertGustafson (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon, you may be blocked from editing. There is clearly no consensus in favour of including the liner note comments. You have already been asked repeatedly to discuss on the talk page and try to establish a consensus. That involves taking a few days to wait for responses from other editors. It also involves respecting the fact that there is no consensus in favour of including the text. bonadea contributions talk 14:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken things up with Conflict Resolution

I have referred this issue to the No Original Research Noticeboard (see "I try to compare and contrast DVD/liner note narratives" for my side of the story); please redirect your complaint thereto.RobertGustafson (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: See here

Robert: I have added my opinion that you have, indeed, been trying to insert trivial and WP:OR into The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon, and should not do so again. The consensus (at least, at the time of me posting this) is that three very experienced editors say you are trying to insert WP:OR, and should stop, versus just you wanting to continue adding it in. Assuming that this consensus doesn't alter, any further attempt by you to do so would be seen as disruptive. So do please be prepared to DROPTHESTICK. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Robert, and I will just add a few bits of minor guidance-cum-advice. Do please remember to sign every one of your posts to talk pages; do learn to provide 'Diffs' (see WP:DIFF); don't keep creating multiple topics on the same subject - I count 14 now across multiple pages; and do listen to the consensus, rather than doggedly pursuing your agenda to the extreme. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is only OR when one explicitly makes a conclusion, assertion, or inference--merely implying 1 through a strategic (albeit fair and accurate) presentation of source material isn't OR. (What an article says, not the "intent" of the presentation, matters.) I agree that the liner-note info and the disclaimer may suggest a non-existent controversy, so I've decided not to re-insert. Nevertheless, only my original edits constituted OR; once all explicit assertion are removed in favor of cited evidence, OR disappears! I've also received advice that using quotes for ironic, "so-called" phrases (like this), while common in literature,is frowned on here. The "Plot" section contains no "scare quotes"--everything is a direct quotation, even if a very short one--and the "Cast" section includes only 1 such use--in order to show that the "live animal 'actors'" are live animals, not human actors or CGI creations, as in the latest movie. Also, most of the times when I fail to "sign" are just hurried oversights. I always mean to sign.RobertGustafson (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember providing a link for "Buck". Must have been a typo.RobertGustafson (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error corrected now.RobertGustafson (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]