User talk:Rupert Rostenkowski

Welcome!

Hello, Rupert Rostenkowski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Tdl1060 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

Have you previously edited under a different user name? I ask because your initial edits show a facility with the editing process unusual in new editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing as 2607:f2c0:94fa:8e00:fc2b:e84f:c758:5221? [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No to your first question, I have edited for a long time as an IP though and for your second question, I forgot to login since I'm not used to having an account. Do you have any links to Judi McLeod? You seem rather fixated on the article and your writing suggests you are somehow emotionally involved and a number of your comments in the deletion discussion are highly aggressive and over the top. For instance you accuse me of "tagging and deleting material on this page" when actually what I did was add a few paragraphs from an earlier version of the article and then revert myself when I realized the links were mostly dead. To describe adding material and then reverting myself as "deleting" is very misleading and suggests I was vandalizing or doing some sort of violence to the article. As for "tagging", there's nothing wrong for tagging claims that need citation or tagging sources that are self-published. You haven't identified a single one of those tags as inaccurate so commenting as if the tags were inappropriate is again unfair and very prejudicial. I think you should review your language in the comments you made in the delete discussion and revise/ratchet them down in several places. For instance, it's not fair to accuse me of making "Flatly untrue assertions" when, in fact, the article was full of self-published sources and only had credible sources from after the 1980s until after you edited it - so your comment is not only false but quite unfair and misleading. Rather than making overheated ad hominem attacks, focus on the article itself, not on other editors. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]