User talk:Robynthehode/Archives/2020/August

Reply to August 2020

Dear User: Robynthehode, I realised this mistake when I found a separate wikipedia article, which was the one that I was looking for. I am unaware if 'reverting' refers to 'deleting edits manually' or 'automatically undoing edits through shortcut keys or buttons on the edit page'. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to 'revert' my edits upon the realisation of my errors (due to the issue of time zones, we need Universal Time). Therefore, I didn't 'revert' my edits. I thank you for doing so, Ranamode (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Met Life Tower, RedWarn

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit changing "Clock" to "Clocks" with RedWarn. I agree with your reasoning, but your revert also removed all the other edits by me to that page since the last version by another editor. In the future, I'd ask you to be more careful, since rollback is a very powerful tool and you can't use rollback to undo only a section of edits by one user - it reverts all of their edits on that page, going back to the previous time another editor revised it. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

List of future tallest buildings

It's no secret that List of future tallest buildings has needed updates for quite some time. I see you have contributed to the page in the past; I would like to hear your input on what I have posted on the page's talk page- before I begin executing the rest on the changes. Itrytohelp32 ^(talk) 13:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Circus / Philip Astley

Is this the correct place to contact you and comment? Your reference to the Talk tab on the item page failed to say that there is a second stage, a click on the Edit tab. I found my way here by guesswork; your lack of clarity hasn’t helped me get in touch. Sending me the same email three times hasn’t reassured me of your calm and rational consideration of the matter. In case I have now reached the correct medium of communication, please comment on the following. I accept your previous deletion of references to the success of my play, references which could be seen as ‘self-promotion’, though those mentions are paralleled by other entries on the page which remain undeleted. My most recent edits have been purely factual, and the facts are as follows: 1. I am the historian who pinpointed the site of Philip Astley’s first performances. I gave a reference to the published details. As such, it seems reasonable to include my name; 2. I am the person who, having advised the local community that their homes are on the site of this important event in popular culture, also initiated their generosity in erecting a Plaque, the first monument to Philip Astley to have been officially unveiled in this country. I can if you wish add a link to the website of the community organisation, which reports and verifies the event, but it gives my name and there are photographs of me – will that be ‘self-promotion’? ; 3. I am the person who unveiled the Plaque while costumed as Philip Astley, a major contribution to public awareness of the story. Is the unveiling and my part in it to be redacted? I can give references to published reports. 4. I am the only person in the world to have chosen to document this history by originating and performing a piece of theatre which tells the story and also allows audiences to see Astley’s character, an important factor in understanding the evolution of circus and also of the nomadic community which exists around the Classical (you may be using the outdated term ‘traditional’) circus. Again, it seems reasonable to give my name in this context. I compare your unfavourable treatment of my material with the unredacted references to the excellent Philip Astley Project and to my old and good friends the Van Burens; to the promotion (?) of the superb history book researched and written by Karl Shaw; and further down the page to the mention of a commemorative paving stone at St Thomas’s Hospital, a paragraph which features the name of Zippo’s Circus and which (if you were consistent in your judgments) is ‘self-promoting’ (I should mention that it was again me who wrote this paragraph, since it was me who acted on behalf of the circus company in every aspect apart from paying for the stone). Regarding your deletion of material on the ‘Circus’ page, comments similar to those above regarding any inclusion of my name apply here too. Because my efforts to contact you ended in failure this morning for the reason given at the start of this note, I have written separately to Wikipedia at info-en@wikimedia.org to complain as follows, and since you appear also to be the editor of that page, I wish for a full and detailed explanation from you of what appears to be blatant bias in allowing enormous chunks of unverified claims and of self-promoting political material to remain there. My email of this morning read as follows: <<I am a member of the Classical circus community, and a historian of the circus art-form. The Wikipedia page cited in the heading of this message mentions the inclusion and the historical contexts of performing animals in circuses. However, the page is being used as a vehicle by commercially-operated animal rights groups to promote their activities and their political viewpoint. This material now constitutes more than half the page content. Unsubstantiated and generalised claims are made regarding the treatment of animals in circuses. I have in the past added factual information to counter such claims, but on each occasion I did so it was swiftly removed ('swiftly' in this case signifies 'within minutes'). Historical facts are welcome, reflecting changes over time in the content of circus performances. However, I believe that self-promotion by these organisations is against Wikipedia's rules, as should be the expression of corporate political opinion, and I would welcome your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Barltrop (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Probably not something to thank you: you erased the whole post rather than abridging it to a single question "How to perceive the Earth to be not flat?". Additional info: I legit wanted to request a picture from a schoolbook which explains Earth cannot be flat (the "ship example") and to add my experience of watching Sun rising not inside a detached house, but in a hi-rise' apartment well above any obstacles (forest park) between my windows and Sun with even, undisturbed skyline.

• Seriously, that happened because English is not my mother toungue. I am from... let's say, I am from East Europe, and I speak Russian.
• I was asking for a nice good link in a proper English/American book which says "you can see Earth to be not flat because X is happening which couldn't happen should the world be flat". An illustrtion which can be shown to a 4-grader aged 9. Uchyotka (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Got your message. I think you probably want me to leave a basic question "Can we add an illustration\a proof of some sorts"? You messages are now something to thank you for. Uchyotka (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hallo! >However please read the linked article about talk pages not being forums. There are plenty of Youtube videos out there debunking flat earth ideas. I would suggest you watch those.

It's OK, I was treating all the modern flat-earthery as a sophism - not a genuine claim in any way. Also, check out my edits in Spherical Earth -- I decided to put "obvious" things available to ancient people behorehand, and tech-related modern proofs in the end of the list. Uchyotka (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)