User talk:Rl

Glad to see you around

I'm glad you are helping here. I guess it is as needed as ever (I am not that much active these days - low on time, burnout). Pavel Vozenilek 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My current watchlist is at 0.05% of old times. - heh, I stopped to look on it at all. Someone had written one or two applications to fight vandals more effectively. I didn't try them (looking on screenshots I decided that it is too complicated for me) but perhaps they are usable. I am not aware of new features in MediaWiki to deal with vandals or keep quality up. Pavel Vozenilek 22:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Rl, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back

Hi Rl, glad to see you're editing again. Welcome back! Sietse 14:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding Information Loss

Hey, when you removed a dead external link from Legion (software), you also deleted the information that Avaki was commercializing Legion. I fixed that up with info about the demise of Avaki, but please be careful when removing bad external links that you haven't throw away useful info. Greg 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annette M. Böckler

Thanks so much for clarifying. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas Poem

Yes it is rather suspect but i found a rather obscure reference to an early poem with a similar name in a book about the early life of Dylan Thomas. I just assumed that this was the poem and good faith by all means replace the box. The more i look at the poem the more suspect it seems to become but if it is a forgery it is very skillfully done i'm sure you'll agree. As to the source i'm I can't so placing the box back is probably the wisest course of action. We should open a discussion on the talk page Talk:Dylan Thomas' Changing World. thanks Cicero Dog 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Blindekuh replication

My edit in Blindekuh (restaurant) may need revision. It may be expansions of a chain. But here are a pair of reliable source hits from Google searches. Restraunt always using the concept: [1] Special events using the concept: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 June 2006

Re: Image:NetworkTopologies.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Bus.png

Image:NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Line.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Mesh.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Ring.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Star.png

Image:NetworkTopology-Tree.png

Thanks for your interest in my diagrams, i look forward to seeing them in articles! I exported these at twice the size so they'd look better on their own. It's a shame OmniGraffle doesn't have good SVG support. Foobaz·o< 00:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and uploaded new versions of these images without the text. Good suggestion. Foobaz·o< 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Roses

Thanks for fixing it and pointing out the right way to do it. This is my first fix of this nature but it really needed to be done. Thans again! PeregrineV 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA and AMA

Thanks. Re: the flaks, I did notice their unskillful hands at work. Well, I'm sitting on top of a treasure trove of published resources from which to improve these articles. No doubt, I will have some battles with the flaks. What amazed me about these articles is that not one word about any of the multiple financial and ethical scandals involving the AMA over the past 20 years has gotten into these articles. Hope to correct that soon. Askolnick 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger. Thanks. Askolnick 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. If you are interested in such things, we should probably compare notes. If you email me at the email icon on my home page, and give me an email or phone no. outside of this system, I'll explain why I am being cryptic.

The main problem I have with Wiki is of finding by accident interesting stuff that needs editing :)--DGG 19:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- impact factor

Hi R1,

Thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia-- I am indeed new at this. I was wondering if you could respond to the discussion I left on the IMPACT FACTOR talk/discussion page. Thanks for suggesting that perhaps we can include the tabulation in Wiki on the impact factor page only. For neutrality reasons, perhaps, instead of me (for impartiality), you could include the links below back into the page. Thanks.

A tabulation of the 2005 ISI Impact Factors for leading medical and science journals, tabulated by major scientific and clinical disciplines, can be found here:

ISI 2005 Ranking of journals by scientific disciplines: General science, Medicine, and clinical disease areas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiding (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 September 2006.

I do not want to get into a fight, but I will revert. I defer to your knowedge of WP, but I do know copyright. I have suggested to our friend who does not sign his name that he send his blog to ISI and ask for permission. That\'s the direct and honest way to do it. Further, I believe one of the other editors said a link to one's own blog is never ok, on other grounds. DGG 06:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rl,

Just as an FYI, I've pasted this following discussion on DGG's page...

Thanks for your advice DGG. I will take your advice. And because I'm a newbie to WIKI, I apologize that I yet know all the standard protocols to everything yet. But as a side discussion, In the past when I have published in JAMA (3x times), I have noticed that certain other journals such as BMJ have reproduced my figures from my JAMA article (SAME EXACT DATA!) and republished them in BMJ with only stylistic edits. However, according to BMJ practice, is techinically legal because the information is presented in a slightly different layout-- even though its the same information. Thus, it would seem that the re-arranging of information layout, even if its the same data, does not constitute copyright infringement - at least that's how the BMJ and British Medical Association interprets it. If you want to see what I mean, I can email you my JAMA article as well as BMJ's reproduction (which only acknowledges "adapted from", and doesnt say "permission from" JAMA). In any case, this is an interesting discussion. Thanks for all your help DGG! Epiding 06:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Epiding 07:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, pax

agreed., Rl. we have enough problems keepinng it up in one place, and some of the angry parts might merely have been simultaneous arguments. Let's get this right, personally and in the article DGG 07:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Jeffery Bennett

Thanks for putting the "non-notable" tag on this article. I had exchanged talk-page posts with the editor of this article the day it was created, so didn't feel it would demonstrate the requisite impartiality for me to do it myself. Risker 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup on Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software

I have been working to cleanup Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software. I see that you have edited that page in the past. If you would be so good as to check out the latest version and contribute to or comment on the article, it would be most appreciated. Cheers, -- Jake 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Demkina

Reverting is taking the easy way out. If you don't like something tag and bag as per wiki procedures for WP:V, WP:POV, WP:OR etc, and explain your reasoning for any deletions.

Please also be aware of past discussions on the portrayal of paranormal claims by claimants (including; "Inclusion does not equal advocacy" and "Verifiable claims, not verifiable truth" in regards to pseudoscience), and the use of sources in environments where Peer review etc is scarce.

perfectblue 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was discussed with others in advance, just not with yourself as it happens.

Besides, it was mostly just a restating of what was already there. Same information, same sources, just rearranged to put the experiments into three different sections, and with the bits about her personal life taken out. It is essentially a reworking of the same entry that you had before.

perfectblue 07:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Now, if you have any issues about the page, rather than the way in which you were not part of the loop, you are free to discuss them.

perfectblue 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RI. Thank you for your comment about the rewrite. It appears that attempts to introduce substantial rewrites continues, despite my requests to slow down and discuss disagreements. The editor making the rewrites insists that I must tag disputed content rather than reverting the article to its pre-rewrite state. Whatever help you could offer would be most appreciated. Nick Graves 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graves, please explain how changes can be discussed when they are constantly being reverted?

perfectblue 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. You propose potentially contentious changes on the article talk page prior to making them. That is how it works for many of the controversial articles, where everybody being bold ends in mayhem. Rl 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RFA

Actually an RFA does not have to stick around for the full 168 hours. RFA as it's name suggests is a request for adminship. A clearly failing RFA with little chance of succeeding is a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at the reference desk about NYT, soy milk and Vitamin D

Hello RI. In your comment at the reference desk, are you asking for someone else to read the 1971 paper and look for any mention of this issue? If that's the question, and you can send me the scans via 'Email this user', I can certainly do it. EdJohnston 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Don't be a dick

Don't blame the victim. Actually, I thought I was being funny and defusing the situation with humor. And speaking of "Don't be a Dick", go read the talk page on Dulbecco's law. Totally and completely inappropriate behavior on the part of an admin while I was trying to be WP:CIVIL and also WP:AGF. When I saw what I was getting into, I even gave up the point totally, not that that stopped him. Far too much of this on Wikipedia as it is.Pproctor 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

My mistake. I noticed that the IP had removed a large chunk of text and failed to realize that the IP thereafter moved it to a more appropriate article. I self-reverted. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know much about the 2 Priya films that Rajinikanth acted in.

User:AVTN/T/1
I was quick adding articles for Rajinikanth films with AWB (that is how the mistake came to be because I used {{subst:PAGENAME}}). I would assume the Kannada Priya is a remake of the Tamil Priya with different cast but Rajinikanth as the main actor. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving Priya (1978 film) to Priya (film) then getting both Priya (1978 film) and Priya (1979 film) deleted. Do you think that is the best course of action? ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested those two pages for speedy deleting and have executed the move. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. ~~ AVTN ^{T C}_VPS 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The films were remade in Tamil after the original was successful. So both are 100 percent different. Universal Hero 20:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Materiality (architecture)

Hi. What do you mean by insufficient context here ??? It IS the context it is used in i.e. no other context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YBorg (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 April 2007

KSR v. Teleflex at sources

Thank you for the reminder regarding wikisource materials for KSR v. Teleflex. I added the text of this decision to the wikisource page linked from the Wikipedia article, as well as a PDF image of the slip opinion. --Ryanaxp 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

serials crisis

OA articles & price reductions: The fullest information is Springer, which published a formula: I'll add the ref later today to the Springer web site discussion. There are also secondary sources, including a peer-reviewed article of mine, so I'll cite it--remove it if you think it inappropriate. Elsevier & some others also promised, without giving details; PNAS intends to use the money to diminish future price increases. I'll add a longer discussion (but probably not today) to the p. of hybrid oajs. (you're in good company, Harnad also doesn't know this detail; after I write it, I'll also post it to his list next time he says it's double payment).

That whole series of articles needs sources--I have been quite careless about it, possibly in reaction to the absurdly over-sourced page on open access) DGG 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard A. Jorgensen

Thanks for your query. I am the WP:WPChi Director. Yes, we currently tag all articles with any categories listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. Generally, all WP:GA, WP:FA articles and those that someone has taken enough interest in to assign a quality rating are given a priority rating. Even low importance articles are part of the project. We have actually taken action to promote and demote several GAs even though they were mid and low priority articles. Also, on low priority pages it is just as easy for us to add a {{ArticleHistory}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}} template. If you feel that the category which is causing the article to be tagged should not be on the article you can remove it and then remove the tag. TonyTheTiger 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn User

INSTEAD OF PUTTING A PROD ON MY Jacob's Ladder(Novel) why don't you read the novel and help me with it? -User:M.Naff

Administrator

Hello. You ran for admin before, but that was nearly two years ago. You've made more than two thousand edits since then. Is there any reason I shouldn't nominate you for Admin again? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your offer. It is tempting, but if I'm not mistaken, editors nominated for adminship a second time are expected to demonstrate improvements on the issues that made them fail the first time around (longer stay, more edits, civility, edit summaries, whatever). And I can't. I wouldn't even know how to offer evidence of improvement based on the comments I got in my RfA. Would you? – I'm afraid I'd be cast as an unrepentant sinner, and that's a tough sell on WP:RFA. Rl 20:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Oh well. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's

That's at least the second 'it's' you've corrected for me. Don't tell anyone at the primary school I work at :) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo panorama

Just saw your note on my talk page. I do still have the originals, but am out of town this week. I have a more recent version of photoshop elements that I might give a try at blending with; if I'm not successful, I'll hand them over and you can give them a shot. Thanks for the note. Elf | Talk 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

common name

The trick question comment on my talk was in reference to what 'I know', when of course the question should be what do the reliable sources say. Bearded dragon is a common name for at least some of the species, in the sources I have used to improve the articles in the past. Some species are redlinks, and no doubt have a number of variants on this name. Some of these sources use this as a common name that refers to the genus Pogona, so that title may end up redirecting there. This common name is used to casually refer to the various species of this genus by regional sources, be it a bloke down the pub, a tourist pamphlet, or a web page someone wrote on caring for the pet. These sources are usually vague, to the point of being erroneous, and are not intended to be systematic or authoritative (except by the bloke at the pub :).

Moving Bearded Dragon (pet) to Bearded Dragon was bold, but I'm intending to provide some clarity to the situation. It definitely does refer to Pogona vitticeps given at in those links, but it also refers to other species, a fact related in Central Bearded Dragon. This curious arrangement of articles is confusing, and has hindered the inclusion of edits based on better sources. The article with the taxobox for that species, as with the other taxa in Pogona, should be about that topic; the reliable sources for Pogona vitticeps will invariably use the scientific name, in accord with the ICZN rules and it's impeccable referencing for this systematic name. It is the most commonly used name, and most closely accords with the spirit and letter of guidelines and policies, including the one we both praise: NPOV. Bearded dragon is a specious name, not the name of a species, there are no rules for how it is applied. How these relate to various populations as they are reclassified or split to new taxa may be circumscribed in a reliable source, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It is doubtful anyone would bother. The contributors to the articles are largely newbies, anons, and other well intentioned editors writing about pets (perhaps their pet). There is a fragmented discussion on a page for these lizards in captivity, I envisage an article under a name like Pet Bearded Dragon will incorporate the encyclopedic material. The instructive material can go to wikibooks, this is most of the current content of these articles.

This does not fully answer your question, but I hope it will eventually be answered in the articles. BTW, I had a quick glance through you contributions, I was impressed by the diversity of intriguing articles you have edited. Cheers for your contributions, cygnis insignis 15:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to ask a trick question. I was just a bit frustrated by the fact that both articles hinted at an answer but failed to give one. And without that answer, naming the articles seemed difficult. That's all. -- Based on your explanations (thank you!), I wonder whether Bearded Dragon should become a disambiguation page with links to the genus Pogona and the pet dragon page (whatever its name) and possibly links to every species commonly referred to as bearded dragon (if that can be reasonably done). I just want readers to find the information they are looking for, no matter their background. I'm looking forward to see how these pages evolve. Rl (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Charity: water

I have nominated Charity: water, an article that you have edited, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity: water. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limax maximus

Thanks so much for letting us know the slug was from Switzerland. Yes that is helpful. I put that into the caption on the species page. Oh and generally when you load up a photo of an animal like this slug, it is good to say (at least roughly) when and where the shot was taken, and if possible how big the creature was. Thanks again. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about bibliography articles

Hi RI,

I know you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic and thought you might be interested in participating here.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi RI,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 686 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ralph Siegel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proliferation

The only other idea I can think of is linking it to the wiktionary page on the same subject. In the end, I'm not going to revert you if you revert my edit. But I tend to be of the mind that disam page links are never ok. There's always someplace we can link the page that beats linking it to the disam page. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: update on Prior restraint

Hello, Rl. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AutopatrolledHello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:This permission does not give you any special status or authority Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove itIf you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Your account has been blockedYour account has been blocked indefinitely because it has become apparent that it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatent violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate username, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. --Vigorous action(JP Administrator)