User talk:Raidiohead55

Fritz Allhoff moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Fritz Allhoff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hatchens (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All citations arise from his own personal webpage and CV. How can I acquire more accurate information than that? Raidiohead55 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi Raidiohead55! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Berek (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Cook et al.[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Cook et al. 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://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature[edit]

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature doesn't fulfill even the most basic standards of a Wikipedia article. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I have a life, and do not currently have the time to satisfy your demands, although I assure you that I most regret being unable to. If you were to perhaps provide constructive criticism or even amend the article yourself, as Wikipedia is designed for, that would be fabulous. Raidiohead55 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about a single paper of a single person is pure nonsense. The cited sources as well as the focus on criticism of this highly regarded study is also a sign of poor quality. I will request deletion. Wikipedia is not a platform for climate change denialists. --Hg6996 (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but this paper has been personally quoted by Barack Obama and been downloaded over a million times, are you seriously suggesting that doesn’t warrant an article about it? Furthermore, my cited sources are completely valid, they feature peer-reviewed papers, reputable news outlets etc - the fact you would criticise this seems that you are desperate to censor this criticism.

I am not a climate change denier, which is why you can feel free to amend the article, providing any praise of the study you are aware of. Raidiohead55 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature 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/Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature 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.

FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Fritz Allhoff[edit]

Hello, Raidiohead55. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fritz Allhoff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Raidiohead55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was banned for using a proxy, yet I didn’t even make an edit Raidiohead55 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I’m not quite sure why I was blocked. Ostensibly, it was because I logged in with a proxy. Whilst this is true, I didn’t make an edit during this time. As shown by my edit history, I have made various contributions to pages, in good faith. I find it absurd that I was blocked with this in mind. Raidiohead55 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Argument by gibberish[edit]

The article Argument by gibberish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A lot of this is fairly dictionary-definition level, and the sources given are not reliable.

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. AFreshStart (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]