User talk:Rwbest

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply 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. The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the problem as much as possible and given the reason in the edit summary. Please tell me what I can do more on Talk:Worldwide_energy_supply, not here. Rwbest (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know the critical points well enough. This essay needs better sources, with exact references on what page or pages a fact is to be found. The Banner talk 20:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved the source problem but you don't understand. Please look at Talk:Worldwide_energy_supply. Rwbest (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply (2nd nomination) 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. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwbest. 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

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]

I have filed a case here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Worldwide energy supply. The Banner talk 16:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwbest. 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

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]

What the joy to see the article unreliable and under-sourced by a deliberate effort NOT to add better sources or requested sources. Would it not be far nicer to keep your articles safe & sound instead of constantly challenged? The Banner talk 18:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2016 the citations were adequately addressed in the discussion following the deletion nomination: "adequately sourced", "Plenty of sources". Rwbest (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this is your argument forever en ever. But this is about information added after that AfD. The Banner talk 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you're a fan of renewable energy (so am I) but I think you have less experience of Wikipedia biographies than I do. The statements you added to Jacobson's article represented his opinion as fact - this is not a good thing to do, since he's an outlier in many areas. Please propose changes on Talk first. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit-warring for your preferred version of the article, and not taking into account clearly identified objections. Now would be a good time to stop. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mark Z. Jacobson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to improve the lead of Mark Z. Jacobson which is ridiculous unbalanced, a caricature of Jacobson. But my attempts are severely hindered by reverts by others. Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts. Rwbest (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better improve the main body of the article first and only after that you can improve the lead. And please, use independent, reliable sources that clearly state what you claim. And finally: refrain from personal attacks. The Banner talk 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't stop your attempts, you'll be blocked. It really is that simple. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rwbest. Following your initial edit here of April 4 in which you revised the lead, it appears you reverted five times to reinstate your version (after it was removed by others). You are expected to find a talk page consensus if your material is disputed. If you continue to revert you can be blocked for

edit warring by any administrator. I saw this dispute reported at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Z. Jacobson. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Rwbest_reported_by_User:JzG_(Result:_). Please respond there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rwbest. The edit warring complaint has been closed with a warning to you. You may be blocked if you revert again on the subject of Mark Jacobson without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply (3rd nomination) 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. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rwbest, as I do not think al participants in the discussions are real existing editor. The Banner talk 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwbest. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring and removing of a maintenance template, you could add the source at the place where it is requested. That will make the article more verifiable. Just "search the source yourself somewhere in this article" is not what the article needs. And you know that... The Banner talk 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the text next to the table you can read

The table lists countries ... for the economy.[Ref 12]

So the table is well sourced. Rwbest (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as usual the reader have to start searching which source to use. Why not add the source to the table? Or does that make the table so verifiable, that the old original research concern comes peeking around the corner again? The Banner talk 09:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Data in the table are easily verified in the source, pointing mouse on countries. No original research at all. Rwbest (talk) 18:07, 28 August 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Linking to Wikipedia alternatives/forks for other languages. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:04, 23 February 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]