User talk:Rockphed

Welcome!

(I see that all you have had in the way of welcome so far is a string of boring templates and notices, so...)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rockphed! Thank you for your contributions. I am ThatMontrealIP and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read your name as Rock Doctor. :-) --evrik ^(talk) 18:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Spatial resolution) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Spatial resolution.

User:Polyamorph while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please expand and always include the references

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Polyamorph}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Top Third Ventures has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Top Third Ventures was changed by Rockphed (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887242 on 2019-07-03T16:54:45+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Are you qualified to be commenting at RfA? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:By which you mean have I been on wikipedia for 3 months and made 500 edits? No, I made this account a month or so ago and have about a third the generally desired edits. On the other hand, I have been editing wikipedia anonymously off and on for the last 15 years. My impetus for creating an account was actually that I ran into some articles that needed fixing but which were semi-protected. I haven't actually gotten around to fixing them because of other time constraints. On the gripping hand, how the community behaves probably does more to determine if new editors stick around, or if they throw their hands up in disgust and leave. Are you suggesting I should do the latter? Rockphed (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I can't remember how I came across them, but I am at a loss for what to do about user:Mdehrey. They created 4 articles and a half dozen redirects that are of dubious notability and poor quality. I found a discussion where one of the articles had been deleted by discussion and then recreated, so I nominated it and all the redirects for speedy deletion, but I don't want to sink days into figuring out proper policy and determining if sources are good and figuring out notability. Is there somewhere I can throw either the user or the articles at for review?

Rockphed (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is little use in taking this to a noticeboard as they haven't edited in almost 10 years. You may tag the content for deletion if it fits speedy deletion criteria, WP:PROD, WP:AFD or WP:RFD. Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Eisenbrand

I removed the deletion tag. The subject is clearly notable. You need a strong argument to claim that 3 national and international prizes is not enough. Mhym (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Matte

Re your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucien Matte that you wished you had grabbed the source from the article before its speedy deletion: the single reference in the deleted version is https://web.archive.org/web/20110706190027/http://www.mysudbury.ca/downloads/lives_lived/religion.pdf. (I think it's the same as the link listed in the deletion log entry for that article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi. Thank you for taking an interest in how we elect our admins. You will certainly find WP:RFAV an interesting and helpful read. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith

Hey. I just checked my watchlist and noticed your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Lang. Could you please explain how my nomination is in bad faith? I think you may have mixed my comment with the one below it, by the page creator. Regards, Vermont (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont: You are right, I did mistake the page creator's comment for the end of your comment. I had read it as "I am mad that pages I liked got deleted, so I am going to nominate pages someone else made about people of the same level of importance for deletion. That will show them!" My apologies. Rockphed (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, just wanted to clarify. Best, Vermont (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2019 (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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]