text:
User talk:Cypherrange

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. You may also want to check out Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, you might want to add yourself to the new user log; if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Finally, here are some open tasks:

Other links for reference: Wikiquette, image copyright tags, Merge Hope to see you around the Wiki! Remember to be Bold! with your edits, and if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cypherrange


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibal City Tours

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Cannibal City Tours
Fictitious entity from books and author for which I was unable to find anything notable on Google. Joel7687 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable --InformationalAnarchist 05:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn Friday 20:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn --royblumy 21:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable - Tεx  τ  urε  19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Rmky87

Clairify for me, how a history of produced plays is a copyright violation?

or do you just enjoy removing information from pages people are actively working on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CSTV (talk • contribs).

New York Knickerbockers
Good day, I noticed that you removed the {cleanup} tag from the said article. That's not the reason I am invading your talk page, rather it's the article and the Knickerbocker Rules article. The rules themselves are elaborated upon in a separate article, so I was thinking, maybe they could be wholly left out of the article on the Knickerbockers, and the article on the rules could be expanded? Just a thought. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea.--Rmky87 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, I do not have any time to reasonably do this, as I am exceedingly busy in real life, but I will be happy to take care of these articles next week. However, if You want to have a go, please do. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Demotions
I am curious as to why you are going around Wikipedia changing the quality ratings of so many articles? I personally think you should reach some sort of consensus before doing this, as it could anger many people if you continue. LWF 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I started doing this after noticing that some of the FFAs V.05 ratings of Featured, which isn't right. I've been doing this to the ones that are from the former featured articles page. I've been going by what the FARs and the failed A-class reviews say. You should also notice that I've been doing it to articles that were rated B-class by someone who didn't go through the checklist. I'm glad it's there to show people that B-class doesn't just mean that you have a really long article that doesn't meet WP:WIAGA (which is honestly what I used to think). I hope that clears things up.--Rmky87 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely reply. I'm glad there is a reason, and it isn't just random. Thank you again for your time. LWF 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!--Rmky87 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Week
NCurs e work 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your kind comments about my work on Quatermass II on its talk page, when passing it as a Good Article. Thanks! Angmering 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rmky87 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: your request on my talk page. I don't think I can, I'm afraid — I'm very sorry, but a) CFD is just not something I've ever had anything to do with, and it would look and bit odd if I suddenly popped up there with these, and b) it's really nothing to do with me. I think such things should be dealt with by those who know what they're doing on the admin side of Wikipedia — I'm afraid that generally speaking, aside from the odd push towards a Good or Featued article, it's something I pretty much stay away from. Sorry. Angmering 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Updates on TV tables
Hi Rmky87,

I see that you've been updating the tables at WP1.0 recently. I wanted to make sure that you know about the bot-generated tables at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Television articles by quality and elsewhere. Where these is a bot generated table, we will use this first for our article selection since it is likely to be the most up-to-date. At this point, we'll mostly be using the manually generated tables when there is no bot table available.

I added a little bit to the WP:TV page to make sure people are aware of this; I think article talk pages can have assessments added at any time.

Thanks for keeping us up to date, and for your assessment work! Walkerma 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rmky87 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments
Hi again! I noticed that you've re-assessed quite a few articles recently, and some such as Plato and sulfuric acid are marked as "Start". Which WikiProject's criteria are you using to assess these? I know that the WP:Chem definition of B-Class doesn't require references, indeed some tagged by the project as B have no refs at all, yet you marked this as "Start" on the basis of references. Are there specific topics that are missing from the sulfuric acid article? (Note that WP:Chem actually invented the assessment scheme!) I'm aware that some projects such as WP:MILHIST use tighter criteria, but many don't.

Also, you might be interested in helping us with a new direction at a 1.0 project, WP:WVWP, which is designed to get unassessed articles assessed and tagged. We're focusing on articles that have no parent WikiProject (so none of the above worries!), and looking at some of the more important topics first. We're using these guidelines. Would you be interested in helping with this? We'd appreciate your energy! Thanks, Walkerma 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments II
Hi, thank you for taking the time to assess a number of articles within WikiProject Abortion! I disagreed with you on two assessments, though, History of abortion and Beginning of pregnancy controversy. "History..." has more in common with articles in Category:B-Class Abortion articles than it does with Category:Start-Class Abortion articles, and, I feel, the level of sourcing is far ahead of that in other abortion-related articles; "Beginning...", I feel, has some unresolved OR issues that need to be taken into account. Hope you don't mind. -Severa (!!!) 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Joanna Christie
Thanks for tagging the Joanna Christie page properly. I'm still feeling my way with Wikipedia, so your help is much appreciated. Gringotsgoblin 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Gringotsgoblin

Oklahoma City bombing
Just a few questions about you removing the peerreview tag on the article. How is the article peer review over? I have only received a response from the bot. Is there a time limit on the peer review? --Nehrams2020 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The last response is dated February 19; the GAnominee tag has been up since February 25.--Rmky87 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Go Board Game
Hi, are you happy with the URL changes we made to the page? If not let us know. Thanks, --ZincBelief 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, why you revert the explanation of original meaning of go game that just added ;-) --Jarodtang
 * Because the prose was poor.--Rmky87 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Chinese who practice go game for 15 years, and found many westerners weird about the "go" game, it's reasonable to explain the meaning of the original game name, isnt it?. And I also found that after the explain, the western guys get better understanding about the game faster ;).--Jarodtang —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessments III
Thanks for takign the time to assess WikiProject EastEnders] articles! Just out of interest, why have you rated Angie Watts as "Start" and Pete Beale as "B"? What is the major difference? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter Beale has a citation after almost every paragraph. I was going by the MILHIST criteria.--Rmky87 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that you did this and also wanted to say thanks - I think the members of the EastEnders project (myself included) have been lazy in assessing the articles! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rmky87 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's March also on my calendar
However, I just 'moved' the maintenace tags from Simon Young to its 'children' (first time that I saw such a double person page) and left also the date at February. Anyway, it doesn't matter as long as the tags help...Ciao. Tikiwont 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Firefly
Oh, Rmky87, I am really really sorry, I should've done that, and if I could do it over, I wouldn't do it.. Again, I apologize, and in the future I will not do that, please forgive me (not being sarcastic).. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm glad :) .. Oh, also, I set up Firefly Reception and Firefly Production for deletion, since no pages link to them.. Again, I apologize, I should've used the talk page.. Anyway, I'm happy that both of us were able to settle this :) .. Have a nice day.. Oh, also, I'm starting a topic on the Firefly talk page, I suggest you check it out when I start it.. Thanks, and I hope that we run into each other again sometime.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Hi, Rmky87! Thanks for reviewing Vitamin C; I've main the changes you suggested...is that all it needed for promotion? — Jack · talk · 19:57, Friday, 9 March 2007

Lawyer GA on hold
Nehrams2020 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

British Pharmacopeia
Thanks for the wikification. Ddruk 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism
I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ho and others
Thanks for the pointer. I don't know what you thought might possibly be insulting about it. You have underscored one fact for me--doing a proper article on low-budget commercial cinema will really require people with familiarity in all these little genres from around the world, like the one you've raised here. There's so much to learn.—DCGeist 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: What on earth is this supposed to mean?
I would be interested in learning what standards they applied in forming their claim that the anticonvulsants in question were administered at "average dose levels". They were probably radically different, depending on the needs of the patient. This is a relatively small population, too. But, nonetheless, it does seem to prove that certain anticonvulsants have a significant pharmacological interaction with glucaric acid (all of the anticonvulsants mentioned, except valproate, increased levels of some unspecified enzyme, which had the effect of incresing glucaric acid excretion). However, there is no page for glucaric acid, and the closest article is about a broad class of sugar acids (discussed on the page Aldaric acid). I am unsure of any medical (or other) uses of these compounds, so I really wonder what the point of this study was. Fuzzform 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent comment : is scientific peer review over on the ascorbate page?
Hi! You removed the tag on peer review and I just have a question ot two, I don't understand: who were these reviewers? How can we tell they left? What does it mean (that they left?). Please spare some time to explain to me this... Thanks in advance. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew
That other image is not a screenshot. It's a promotional photo released by ABC for the second season episode "I Know Things Now." --DrBat 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ibid
Thanks for the advice - I had already noticed that when I was creating & editing the article... don't know why I didn't just remove them all then! I'll insert the full references asap. EyeSereneTALK 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Rmky87 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Review closings
Hey, Rmky87, just wanted to leave you a note to review the discussion on Marskell's page; when editors update the articlehistory on fac and far closings, it makes for extra work for the bot operator. If a FAC or FAR hasn't been closed, you can leave a note on Gimmetrow's talk page. Thanks for the help! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Krypton
GA-level articles should be set to B-level, as GA is not a level on the Chemistry assessment scale, nor are GAs tracked by Wikibot 1.0. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Frances (2004) article
See if it looks B class now. Thegreatdr 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Big O: second peer review
The Big O is going through a second peer review. The purpose of the review is to learn what's needed for it to become a featured article. Your input is welcomed.--Nohansen 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability
You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request help, ABA article
I'm assuming that you're the friend Kassiane told me about. I am wondering if you could help me with an edit war I'm currently in. I am attempting to make sure that the Applied behavior analysis article includes criticism however two practitioners are attempting to revert all critical edits. I could use any and all assistance you would be able to give. Thank you.--Ensrifraff 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me their names? I want to know who to revert.--Rmky87 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For your cpedits to Western Ganga Dynasty and Western Chalukya literature where I had by mistake removed a few citations.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) You're welcome.--Rmky87 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Karnataka
Sir, currently this article is undergoing copy edits to promote it to Peer review. The intent of removing citations was that the citations exist in the subarticles and as per wiki rules, the same citations do not have to appear on the main article also. User:Gnanapiti has been working hard to make the size of the article acceptable for PR and FAC. There is nothing wrong in what he is doing. We are all a part of the Karnataka work group who have been working on this article for about 2 months to make it a FA. There is NO foul play here. thank you.Dineshkannambadi 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rmky87:Thank you for your revert in Karnataka article. In the end, that helped much. I actually reverted your edit, assuming you thought User:Gnanapiti removed all those references unilaterally. However, after seeing your message in User:Dineshkannambadi's talk page, I realized that there are few broken links. In fact there were several (four, to be specific). :-)
 * I have corrected all of them, and have re-inserted the missing references back. Thank you again! - KNM Talk 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for partaking in my effort to have a listing of stable article revisions. How do you suggest we get this project off the ground? (messedrocker • talk) 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be featured, they just need to cite their sources, be accurate, free of bias, and free of original research. (messedrocker • talk) 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They've become old. (messedrocker • talk) 16:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Revisions should be as recent as possible and they should follow the requirements. (messedrocker • talk) 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could this fit in somewhere? (plus my reply)
My article-writing skills aren't the best right now and I don't often know which bits of information really matter and I'm wondering about this:

Relationship of Parent and Child Informants to Prevalence of Mania Symptoms in Children With a Prepubertal and Early Adolescent Bipolar Disorder Phenotype

It basically says that children do become euphoric while manic and that those studies didn't find that should have asked the children instead of just their parents.--Rmky87 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, as far as the article goes itself I agree it is very sensible to include children's POV in assessing mental state. However, bipolar disorder in children is very rare and the fact that it has such as significant section in the Bipolar Disorder article is one I'm not sure how to address. After taking a good look at the article there is a large amount of material which is going to be a headache to reorganize. Given the length of the article if you want to stick it in as a one-liner should be ok but it isn't earth-shattering. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I'm using a shortcut work in the past, but I gues that was just for FA, GA and GAC. Gran2 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I want to send you a private message, but you don't have an e-mail address registered with your Wikipedia account. How could I contact you? MessedRocker (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to Special:Preferences and set an e-mail address. MessedRocker (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification of AFD for Harjinder Singh Khurana
I have put Harjinder Singh Khurana up on Articles for deletion. Since you have contributed to the article you may wish to comment at the discussion-- Cailil  talk 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: French primidone article
I might be able to find it at one of the several university or public libraries in the area. My guess is that the Harvard libraries have access to it, and perhaps also the BPL (these are 2 of the 3 largest libraries in the country; one of the many perquisites of Boston). I'm bogged down in work at the moment, but I'll certainly help you locate it as soon as I have a free moment. Fuzzform 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: history section of the primidone article
This is by far the longest history section I have ever seen in any drug-related article; quite an interesting progression of opinions regarding the best drugs for epilepsy. However, some of the information seems to belong in an article concerning the history of drug treatments for epilepsy, rather than in the primidone article. The information about other drugs manufactured by the same company that manufactures primidone is a bit tangental (though it does serve to illustrate why the drug fell out of mainstream use). I'm not sure where you'd move this kind of information, though.

Quite amazing, by the way, how far you've brought this article since its creation a couple years ago. Fuzzform 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Chinese primidone article
Hmm... I do have a friend who speaks Mandarin fluently, but I'm not sure whether or not she could read a scientific article. I'll certainly ask, next time I see her. (But, even then, would her translation be a valid source?) As for favors in general... I feel that they ultimately benefit everyone who uses Wikipedia, so feel free to ask me anytime (though I may not get to everything in a very timely manner). Fuzzform 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles requested
A preliminary search has uncovered one of the articles you requested. The others will be more of a challange, but I'll keep looking. Send me a wikipedia email with your address, and I'll send you the pdf. Fuzzform 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's in the toolbox on the lower left. Fuzzform 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * It's right under the search box. You have to be on my main user page, then it should appear right below the "contributions" and "log" options. Fuzzform 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vique Simba
An article that you have been involved in editing, Vique Simba, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Simba Recordings. Thank you. Optigan13 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Regarding Denis Williams 1956
Yes, all of the information presented in this paper would be considered open-label. I would hardly call it a "study" or a "trial", since it doesn't include control groups of any kind (that would be unethical in the context of outpatient treatment). This would better be described as a collection of case studies. It might be citable, in some way, in the phenobarbital article, though certain statements are clearly outdated (e.g. phenobarbital is no longer a first line treatment for epilepsy). Fuzzform 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Primidone approval
I'm not able to read the German article. The first article says it "has been used since 1950" and that 1952 was the first clinical trial. This seems quite consistent with the Epilepsy Action source that it was approved in 1952, which would seem to be unlikely before any clinical trials. The anticonvulsant article lists first approved usage rather than first experimental or first clinical usage. The latter dates would be rather hard to source without detailed a drug development history. Do you think the dates in anticonvulsant are wrong?

Your Primidone article is clearly a labour of love. I've enjoyed reading some of your sources too. Quite shocking the number of highly toxic drugs that were launched and then quietly forgotten. Colin°Talk 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rmky87. Saw your note on User talk:Awadewit (nothing escapes your attention? :-) and reply on my talk page (I assume you were the IP). You are better informed wrt anticonvulsants than I am. I think your 1950 date could well be right (the source is ambiguous) and I wouldn't revert you if you changed anticonvulsant to use that date with your source. History always involves a big of guesswork.

I assume from your work that pharmacy is your speciality and anticonvulsants a particular interest. Is this an area you'd like to help with on epilepsy as editor/reviewer/fact-checker/whatever? DO11.10 has offered to look into the "Mechanism" section, which has an overlap with how anticonvulsants work. Perhaps you can work together to come up with a lay-reader-friendly explanation, because it certainly makes my head hurt. Colin°Talk 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If beautiful lay-reader-friendly prose isn't your strong point, I'm sure there are other ways you could help if you want to. For example, as a reviewer, or to suggest some good sources. See you around wiki. Colin°Talk 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs
Can you look at my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I think you might be able to help. Thanks. Colin°Talk 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hydantoins
A tag has been placed on Template:Hydantoins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:GABA analogs
A tag has been placed on Template:GABA analogs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Valproylamide anticonvulsants
A tag has been placed on Template:Valproylamide anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Oxazolidinedione anticonvulsants
A tag has been placed on Template:Oxazolidinedione anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Urea anticonvulsants
A tag has been placed on Template:Urea anticonvulsants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Bromides
A tag has been placed on Template:Bromides requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Never change a running system
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Never change a running system, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Never change a running system. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikify from March 2007
I have nominated wikify from march 2007 for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Wikify from December 2006
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Wikify from December 2006, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Wikify from December 2006 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Wikify from December 2006, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Solar System
nominated Solar system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
 * I should have done this MUCH earlier! First time - learning & living! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Samurai Deeper Kyo characters
I have nominated samurai deeper kyo characters for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Samurai Deeper Kyo
I have nominated samurai deeper kyo for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Swedish literature
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed at Talk:Swedish literature/GA1. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Big O GAR
As a major contributor to The Big O, I thought you'd want to know that that article is currently under going a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps. The article currently fails the good article criteria, as detailed at Talk:The Big O/GA1. Its reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Thanks. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians in Russell, Ontario
Category:Wikipedians in Russell, Ontario,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Yeast
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Yeast/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Fructose derivative anticonvulsants

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology
I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention.  Kinkreet ~♥moshi moshi♥~ 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Rmky87! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 3 episode list

A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox House (TV series) season 3 episode list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Deprecation of this form of template per result of discussion at Template talk:Infobox television episode

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --  Alex TW 08:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Orbital maneuvering system" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orbital maneuvering system. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bicyclic antidepressants

A tag has been placed on Category:Bicyclic antidepressants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rmky87


text:
Agincourt (band)

Agincourt were a late sixties English psychedelic folk band.

The band consisted of John Ferdinando, Peter Howell, and Lee Menelaus. They released one privately pressed album under the band name, Fly Away, on the Merlin label. This LP has commanded high prices amongst collectors especially after a mid-nineties CD release. In total, the partnership released five albums credited without the band name.

The members of Agincourt were also involved in writing tracks for Alice Through The Looking Glass, Ithaca, and Tomorrow Come Someday.

The group broke up in the early 1970s when Howell secured a BBC sound engineering position and worked on the soundtrack for Doctor Who. Ferdinando would sporadically involve himself in the folk music scene thereafter. As for Menelaus, she performed small roles of vocals and spoken-word on soundtracks.

title: Agincourt (band)


text:
User talk:Nick L.

Excellent work on pop music. This article has been transformed in the last week or so from an NPOV mess to a good, solid article (though still in need of expansion). Martpol 11:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:D100001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:D100001.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I added source data for this image, I hope it is satisfactory. Sorry for the inconvenience! Nick L. 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Graphite Epoxy Motor
Not a problem, thank you for letting me know. Attic Owl 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Delta IV
I think you might have misread my reasoning for posting this at WP:RM. There is a difference between the case of Delta IV and the other examples you quoted. Delta IV redirects to Delta IV rocket, so there are no valid grounds to disambiguate, whereas your examples, Delta III rocket and Delta rocket cannot be named Delta III and Delta because pages already exist at those locations, and therefore it is valid to disambiguate in this way. Thanks. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DT466 lrg.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DT466 lrg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I added a fair-use rationale based on the images in International Durastar, an article I started. --Lpimlott 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :)--Lpimlott 05:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MaxxforceDT.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MaxxforceDT.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nick L.


text:
Micrococcaceae

The family Micrococcaceae includes bacterial genera of Gram positive cocci that inhabit the air and skin, such as Micrococcus luteus.

Genera
The family Micrococcaceae comprises the following genera:

 * Acaricomes Pukall et al. 2006
 * Arthrobacter Conn and Dimmick 1947 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * Auritidibacter Yassin et al. 2011

 * Citricoccus Altenburger et al. 2002
 * Enteractinococcus Cao et al. 2012
 * Falsarthrobacter Busse and Moore 2018
 * Galactobacter Hahne et al. 2019
 * Garicola Lo et al. 2015
 * Glutamicibacter Busse 2016
 * Haematomicrobium Schumann and Busse 2017
 * Kocuria Stackebrandt et al. 1995
 * Micrococcoides Tóth et al. 2017
 * Micrococcus Cohn 1872 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * Neomicrococcus Prakash et al. 2015
 * Nesterenkonia Stackebrandt et al. 1995
 * Paenarthrobacter Busse 2016
 * Paeniglutamicibacter Busse 2016

 * Pseudarthrobacter Busse 2016
 * Pseudoglutamicibacter Busse 2016
 * Psychromicrobium Schumann et al. 2017
 * Renibacterium Sanders and Fryer 1980
 * Rothia Georg and Brown 1967 (Approved Lists 1980)
 * Sinomonas Zhou et al. 2009
 * Specibacter Lee and Schumann 2019

 * Tersicoccus Vaishampayan et al. 2013

 * Yaniella Li et al. 2008
 * Zafaria Amin et al. 2021
 * Zhihengliuella Zhang et al. 2007

Phylogeny
The currently accepted taxonomy is based on the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature and the phylogeny is based on whole-genome sequences.

title: Micrococcaceae


text:
User:Nick L.

Today is.

title: User:Nick L.


text:
User talk:Josh Parris/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for adding ISBN information to Pythagoras, that is indeed very helpful. Oleg Alexandrov 05:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping edit list of books set in new york city. The list is a never ending project. Bremen 07:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I thought I had used it correctly, but apparently I have more to learn, as always. Thanks for letting me know. Lokicarbis 07:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Source for Electrowinning
You tagged your article Electrowinning as being copied from another source. Can you provide the details of that source to verify that the article complies with wiki's copyright policy (WP:CP). I'm going to flag the article as a copyvio in the meantime... once you have the source, post it to the Electrowinning talk page and I'll clear the copyvio notice. Feco 07:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI.. let's continue this conversation on the Electrowinning talk page (as opposed to your or my personal talk pages). I'm posting there. Feco

Smelting
You put this note on my page: ''Thanks for your contribution to Smelting. It would be helpful if in the future you provided an edit summary about the changes you have made.''

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did provide an edit summary! BTW, please sign your notes. You can do it with four tildes. Pollinator 02:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne railway stations
I'm sorry - the Essendon article isn't bad, but I'm not awfully fond of the format, and I'd rather not see it used across the network, for fear of having to do a cleanup round later on. Firstly, it's too short to have sections. Sections are useful for longer articles, but in standard articles of this size, they just make the thing look bad. Secondly, the language could do with a polish. Thirdly, the second image (and its associated caption) looks amateurish. I also don't think the quick facts box is really necessary - the content can fit fine into the lead section. In general, the content is fine, though - I just don't see why it can't fit into a standard article, as per the others. Ambi 11:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RADIUS spam
That link had been reverted many times before; see for example your own reversion on April 28. Sjorford had gone through all those links and left only the one that is currently there. Requests for discussion about the need for the other external links went unanswered, so I just reverted it again. -- GreenLocust 19:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Altering other people's user pages
I suggest that if you make changes to the content supplied by users like Peak to their own user page you are likely to provoke a negative reaction. There are users, such as Slrubenstein, who tolerate messages, etc., on their user page instead of on (or in addition to going on) their discussion page, but other people get upset -- especially when someone else changes what the user himself/herself has written. So if you find it necessary to change something it would probably ruffle fewer feathers if you also put a note on that person's discussion page explaining what you have done. P0M 15:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's what the Edit summary is for. User:Peak is free to revert the change; it is, after all, their user page. I've altered dozens, if not a hundred, of user pages without any complaint from the affected users so far, perhaps because my edits are (usually) sensitive to the existing page. Josh Parris ✉ 23:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I just this moment noticed your recent edit to my user page. I don't know why you don't want it to link to that disambig page, but I happen to want that link. If you have a good reason for making it an external link, please explain why to me, and if I agree, I will do it. (Also, what seems like an attempt on your part to turn the direct link into an external link didn't work - you linked to the "What links here" page for it.)

Let me reinforce what POM said. Generally it's simply not done to edit other people's user pages, except for a few specific and well-defined reasons, such as fixing a link when a page is renamed, or something. Noel (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I suspected that might be your reasoning; see User:Jnc/Disambiguation for my thoughts on basically the same topic. I would suggest you should just ignore links from User: pages to disambig page, since we're really only concerned about articles which contain links to disambig pages. I'm only reluctant to switch my link to an external link because then that one entry will be different. Let me think about it, though.
 * Also, "My contributions" wouldn't really help - I have about 10,000 edits (well, 9350 to be exact). (And I normally do sign - that was an oversight.) Noel (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

ISBN
Hi, you've been adding template:ISBN to a lot of articles recently. Templates likes this (being primarily intended for editors as opposed to readers) normally go on the Talk page of articles. Would you care to chime in at Template talk:ISBN? Regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I would also like to ask you to stop adding that template to the articles themselves. It is not helpful to readers. I am going to revert your additions of these templates; I trust that you will understand. &madsh; Timwi 11:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd wait a bit to see where the discussion is going before categorising again a few hunderd articles. I wouldn't want to run the risk of being reverted again. For the record, I think categorising is better than tagging them with {ISBN}, though I doubt the usefullness of the whole ISBN thing anyway (especially the edition-problem won't go away; besides, I know of many books in my field (African languages and linguistics) that either are not for sale anymore or don't have potential buyers among the readership of Wikipedia). — mark ✎ 07:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand and agree about purchasers of books based on ISBN; who's going to go out and buy a book just because it's referenced in an encyclopaedia? But being linked into all my local major libraries means it's very easy for me to check for an old, out of print, expensive book that I can read, as a reference.  And without ISBNs it's too much work doing a Library of Congress / Amazon lookup (I've done several, to supply ISBNs, I know what a pain in the butt it can be, especially in languages other than my own).  With ISBN links, only one person needs to do the work - once.  ISBN lookups is something I've done for wikipedia in the past, and expect to do in the future; having all the pages needing the attention in one place eliminates the hunt for articles missing ISBNs. Josh Parris ✉ 07:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Foucault entry Josh, I'm not sure that the Foucault entry needs ISBNs. There are multiple editions of Foucault's books in different languages and they are very easy to find. It would just confuse the issue adding ISBNs in a situation where there are multiple reprints of the same books. --Panopticon 22:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Premium stations
The current page essentially serves the same purpose as a category, so it might be better to use the category system I agree. Something like Category:Premium Melbourne railway stations under Category:Melbourne railway stations could do the trick. Also, other cities are bound to have similar setups (Premium/standard stations), so having the list tucked into Melbourne's categories will be clearer if someone decides to add their city's equivalent list of stations to Premium station. One last thing, are host stations (Premium-lite) worthy of another category? TPK 05:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The main list ought to be a complete list, so I would duplicate the categories. The host stations have an * after them in List of Melbourne railway stations, though the list may have changed since that was done. TPK 07:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Heritage Sites in Melbourne
Hi Josh, I have a problem with the name of the Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne. I have been working on entries in Category:Melbourne parks and gardens and several of these are listed as heritage sites, and I envisage other articles, such as aboriginal heritage sites, which would not be covered by the Category title as it presently exists. Can I suggest Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne is renamed as Category:Heritage sites in Melbourne, which is a more inclusive name? See also Talk:Heritage_listed_buildings_in_Melbourne where I have also raised this. --Takver 07:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea. I'll tackle recategorising them early next week (replace to buildings, add site). Josh Parris ✉ 08:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been musing on this, and I'm now thinking chucking Category:Heritage sites in Melbourne into Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne (effectively making it a sub-category) is the most appropriate technique; I've created the appropriate categories. Check it out. Josh Parris ✉ 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You might also be interested in WikiProject_Protected_areas Josh Parris ✉ 06:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fraction
Hey Josh. Now I took a good look at fraction. That article is still more than half math. As such, I feel now strongly that it should be listed on the list of mathematical topics. Then we will be able to watch the recent changes done to that article (if you go to list of mathematical topics, you will understand what I mean).

The reasoning for watching that article, even if it has other things than math, is the following. If a hoaxer will try to screw up fraction (like changing a sign), and no mathematician will watch that article, then poeple will not know if that's a hoax or a true fix for a mistake. This is the reason why one should be inclusive when putting articles in list of mathematical topics, rather than exclusive.

So, I will backtrack on my word now (having spent some of your time), and sometime later today I will put back fraction in the category of fractions, and my bot will add it again tomorrow. Any strong objections? :) Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Only that I intend to move Fraction to Fraction (disambiguation), trim the mathematics down dramatically and make Fraction a redirect page to Fraction (disambiguation) -- there's already a Fraction (mathematics) page (which is a disambiguation page in it's own right). I can add a category to the redirect page, which will ensure it's watched by mathematians to ensure it isn't made to point in the wrong place or get vandalised in other ways.

 * Now I see! Sounds good. Oleg Alexandrov 04:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with the move of "Fraction" to "Fraction (mathematics). The vast majority of people will expect to see that article when they enter "fraction" just and the vast majority of uses of the word "fraction" will want to be linked there.  The appropriate kind of disambiguation for this case is "primary topic" disambiguation (see Disambiguation. Paul August  ☎ 04:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can relate to your point of view. Most people's understanding of fraction (judging by the several dozen links I've disambiguated) is Vulgar fraction, and judging by Fraction (mathematics) (which I didn't create) there are a dozen variations on fraction even in a mathematical context.  The advantage of having the Fraction page redirect is that it becomes very simple to monitor for ambiguous inbound links using "What links here", whereas with a "primary topic" disambiguation page, editors will blindly link to it - with no means to distinguish ambiguous links from intentional links. Josh Parris ✉ 05:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea. How about I point Fraction  at Fraction (mathematics)  with a disbiguation link to Fraction (disambiguation) at the top? Josh Parris ✉ 05:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You mean to say, redirect fraction to fraction (mathematics). Then, why not just move fraction (mathematics) to fraction, and put the link to Fraction (disambiguation) at the top of fraction?
 * Because that makes finding new, ambiguous links to Fraction very difficult. This way I can do a special:whatlinkshere/fraction and anything that is listed is ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 06:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself don't care either way. Whatever you guys decide. Oleg Alexandrov 06:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Steven Emerson
Hi Josh, can you show me where ISBN numbers are needed here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrongly assumed in this case that the presence of ASINs showed a need to translate them into ISBNs. Josh Parris ✉ 03:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Castlemaine
Which article are you tring to move to Castlemaine? I understand the reason for moving the disambig to Castlemaine (disambiguation), but only if you move one of the articles in to take its place, and you haven't said which! I assume it's Castlemaine, Victoria, but it'd be nice to have it confirmed. Can you add this info to the talk page, and WP:RM, and add a tag to the affected article. sjorford →•← 08:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My intention is to create a redirect page from Castlemaine to the disambiguation page, allowing disambiguated links to be directed to the disambiguation page, and allowing explicit linking to the disambiguation page if necessary. A seperate disambiguation page from the default page allows monitoring of ambiguous inbound links. Josh Parris ✉ 11:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the point. Surely, if Castlemaine is a disambiguation page, then any incoming link needs fixing. Nothing should need to link directly to Castlemaine (disambiguation). The move you're proposing isn't the standard way of doing things (although it has been suggested in the past). sjorford →•← 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If Castlemaine (movie) is released, and then becomes the biggest thing of all time, then changing the Castlemaine redirect from Castlemaine, Victoria or Castlemaine (disambiguation) to Castlemaine (movie) is trivial. Policy becomes much easier to enact, and it's transparent to the readers.  Defaulting the redirect to Castlemaine (disambiguation) is just my default way of not having an opinion on what the natural meaning of Castlemaine is.  If someone cares to change that I wouldn't be upset. Josh Parris ✉ 00:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Penhalluriack
Frank Penhalluriack was the Australia Party candidate for Chisholm at the 1974 federal election. My memory is that he also stood in at least one state election but I don't have details on that. Adam 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambig
The reason was that, if you look at Category:Wikipedia official policy, you'll find it contains really official things like copyright violation, user removal, and deletion policy. OTOH, Category:Wikipedia guidelines contains more informal codes of conduct and suggestions. I felt Disambig was closer to the latter. It might even qualify as Category:Wikipedia style and how-to. Yours, Radiant_* 07:18, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy
I've never seen any firm evidence that Kennedy was gay, so I think the amended version is better. Maybe the facts will emerge now that he is dead. Adam 03:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

GM disambiguation
You wrote: ''I see that you're planning on moving the GM disambiguation page. Why?''
 * It does not make sense to have a GM (disambiguation) page and a redirect at GM. Alan Liefting 03:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It appeals to my pedantic-ness and it is also "tidier" to move the GM (disambiguation) to GM and reassign the small number of "What links here" entries. A disambiguation page is only requires if there is one article that is VERY deserving of a title over other less deserving articles. Alan Liefting 03:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for welcoming me! User:The Living Peanut/sig 08:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Not sure what "dab" means, but I assume it means making Victoria AND BC into Victoria, BC.

Bug (disambiguation)
Yes, I'm aware of the formatting -- SNIyer12(talk)

"rv vandalism"
You've made several edits to GW like pages headed "rv vandalism" which simply revert small changes by other editors that don't look at all like vandalism to me (eg ). Could you try to use less inflamatory language?

 * And if you make edits like this people are going to start doubting your good faith William M. Connolley 20:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC).

 * You're both right. I shouldn't edit angry.  The 'rv vandalism' came from autocomplete and laziness.  I understand now the extensive changes that User:Wavelength made were made in good faith, even if in my opinion they detracted from the Wikipedia style.  Some time away from editing has given me that perspective.  I think what set me off what how much was changed.  Anyways, better now.  Josh Parris ✉ 08:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ecology/environment
Could you explain why you undid all these changes, and why you consider some of them "vandalism". Guettarda 13:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * See above, plus my discussions at User_talk:Wavelength. I think User:Wavelength came across a Wikipedia policy and applied it heavily.  An edit to Ecoterrorism and the breadth of articles altered made me suspicious of User:Wavelength's motivations. Josh Parris ✉ 08:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize list items
The section at Lists says "Do not capitalize list items ...", but you have done so at list of environment topics. If I have misunderstood something, please clarify it for me. Wavelength 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, thanks for fixing that link in my userpage. =)

About the article "Ultimate Logging System Professional"'s neturality
May I ask how the article could be improved? --Microtony 06:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:(disambiguation)
I'm not sure if this is relevant to you, but I've just put Template:(disambiguation) up for deletion, since it's a duplicate of the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig. So you might consider updating the part of your user page that refers to the soon-to-be-deleted template. (See WP:TFD for discussion.) --Quuxplusone 01:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Template:(disambiguation) is very similar to the existing, more widely used, and much easier to type Template:Disambig, but serves a different purpose. It's for disambiguation pages that aren't ambiguous. Josh Parris ✉ 01:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * That might be interesting, but it's not true. Before I changed all the references, Template:(disambiguation) had been used for dab pages without (disambiguation) in their titles; and Template:Disambig is certainly being used for dozens, if not hundreds, of dab pages with (disambiguation) in their titles. (Pick a place to continue this discussion if you want to: my talk page or yours. I've added yours to my watchlist for the next week or so.) --Quuxplusone 01:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right. I've used it on inappropriate pages.  Sorry. Still, no reason to delete it. Josh Parris ✉ 02:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a reason to delete Template:(disambiguation), since my whole argument is that it's completely redundant with Template:Disambig in the way it's being used. Keep in mind that the fine distinction between dab-page-with-(disambiguation)-in-the-title and dab-page-without is certain to be lost on the average Wikipedia user, who doesn't keep up with userpage chatter. :)  Thanks for the link to Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), by the way; did you notice that it explicitly supports the use of  on dab pages, and doesn't mention  ? --Quuxplusone 17:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, (disambiguation) is my own invention. I haven't field proven it yet, so I didn't think it was time for it to go into Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).  And now I'm not certain it's a good idea anyway, because if a dab page becomes the primary page for a topic, then the template would need to be changed.  Still, you pounced on it about a day after I created it, which kind of got up my nose. Josh Parris ✉ 00:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: whoops :-)
Hi - as I guess you noticed, I tend to answer questions on the page they are asked on - keeps the thread together. Anyway, yes copper (and other) mineral prospecting is done with multi-spectral imaging -see, , , and from a quick google on multi-spectral mapping copper. Could probably write a wiki article about this. -Vsmith 13:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ark
I very much appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I really don't think this thing is worth an article, possibly not even a line in a disambiguation page, and I probably shouldn't have wikied the word in the first place. It's also inaccurate as written: you'll only find them in tabernacles in Orthodox churches. In Roman Catholic tabernacles they store the reserved sacrament in a ciborium or pyx. It's not that I mind fixing it, but I'm tempted to delete it altogether instead. Csernica 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference
Could you re-run User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference? All the listed problems seem to have been dealt with, and it's been more than six months since it ran. Josh Parris ✉ 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This report has been updated now - have at it! - TB 17:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Script (performing arts)
Hey, thanks for that fix. I guess that was the obvious thing to do, but I never thought about changing the redirect.
 * re: User talk:Harmil; Yeah, I might get my copy of The Complete Book of Scriptwriting back from a friend and see if there's any insight into scripts for stage that Wikipedia doesn't already have under screenplays (he covers a bit about stage play scripts as well). What would you think of Script (performing arts) pulling in info from play and screenplay, to create a general sense of what a script is for, how it's written and why it's different from a book? It would have links to the other pages, of course. -Harmil 13:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * PS: Points on Camera diet well taken. I'll see what I can do.... hmmm... I may need a TODO page soon.

Dab Victoria
Hi Josh, thank you for taking the time to disambiguate all of the various Victorias from the Member of Parliament lists. I just wanted to let you know though that there is one more little wrinkle, namely that these should ideally point to the electoral district rather than the community. These are:

 * Victoria (electoral district) (BC)
 * Victoria (New Brunswick electoral district) (1867-1914)
 * Victoria (Ontario electoral district) (1903-1966)
 * Victoria (Alberta electoral district)

I understand perfectly if you don't feel like going back and changing these again, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to point it out. Cheers, Fawcett5 14:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't feel like doing it again. I will, however, shove these onto the dab page if they're not already there. Josh Parris ✉ 05:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem
I'm about to leave Wikipedia. Anything additional that I should do besides what I already did within my recent contributions?? Georgia guy 29 June 2005 00:06 (UTC)
 * I think everything will be fine; if you're turning off the lights you might want to remove your email address from your user profile, then you won't be emailed as a result of your editing on Wikipedia. Josh Parris ✉ 29 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)

USB cable length
5 meters? Is that for USB 1.1 speeds? I heard it was 3 feet for USB 2.0 speeds.

What are your sources? I'd be interested in finding out the definitive answer. Brewthatistrue 29 June 2005 18:04 (UTC) this is in reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Serial_Bus&diff=prev&oldid=17804146 (don't know how to linkify that normally, so there's the fully link)

 * I searched google: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22USB+cable+length%22+meters Josh Parris ✉ 30 June 2005 00:20 (UTC)

mercury
Oh, ack, and oops, regarding mercury in dragées. I have trouble stopping to think about what links to what. Just the other day I had palm sugar linking to an obscure language. I never would have remembered my mercury goof. Thank you. --Mothperson 2 July 2005 13:55 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Josh Parris ✉ 2 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

Romath
Do you have any objection to nominating that article for a VfD? Judging by my own searches (I'd never heard of her before), Romath is apparently one of the all-time great kooks of the Usenet. Just check search Google groups on [romath kook] or [romath loon]. But are all-time great Usenet kooks notable in an Internet encyclopedia? We aren't even mentioning it in the article. Any thoughts on resolving this matter? Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 05:01 (UTC)
 * I'm just in there protecting the integrity of the article and encyclopedia, I have no personal interest in the ongoing existance of the article. Having said that, surely one of the all-time great kooks of the Usenet would warrent an article - if only because of the entertainment value of biography.  And someone cared enough to create the article in the first place.  If you look at the edit history before the lady herself turned up, it was slowly evolving into a decent article.  Have you had a look at the link in usenet?  It lists others, about half dozen oddballs. Josh Parris ✉ 6 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)

 * Don't feel obliged to sit on your hands if you have an opinion about the article. I'm still ambivalent, but that's no reason to hold you back. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I honestly don't care; life would be a lot simpler if the article went away, but that's purely from an administrative POV. As a vandal, Romath is a very persistent person.  And frustrating, because she doesn't seem to want to listen to reason. It's like trying to reason with an answering machine. Josh Parris ✉ 06:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

DabBot
You could try posting to [mailto:wikibots-l@wikimedia.org] -- Russ Blau (talk) July 9, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the welcome... i hope my contributions are well received and that other find them helpful... i think wikipedia is great... i'm a newcomer to this and hope i dont make to much mistakes auntil i get the hang of it... thanks again.

By the way.. what does "dab" mean?EjidoMike 05:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cassie Palmer
Touch the Dak, Cassie Palmer is not an article about a real person. It's a character in a book series, which I plan to write a summary on. Tamwood222 (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you chill out with A7
I just went through your contributions and you've been tagging mayors of small cities, places, movies, journalists for significant media outlets, events, ideas, articles with multiple references to books...a lot of stuff that is clearly making a claim to notability or deliberately not covered by A7.Prezbo (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mayors of La Crosse, Wisconsin
I notice your comments about whether former mayor Patrick Zielke's article would be notable since the city of La Crosse is a small city. This may not be as cut and dry. John Medinger was mayor of the city of La Crosse for 8 years. Ordinally, this would not make hoim notable but for one fact he served in the Wisconsin State Assembly prior to being mayor. Another exaample is Milo Knutson. He was mayor of La Crosse from 1955-1965-ordinally he would not be notable yet he served in the Wisconsin State Senate from 1969-1977 so he would be notable like John Medinger. I would have to to do some checking but I think there was some mayors of La Crosse ended up in the Wisconsin Legislature and maybe Congress. Just some thoughts-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John T Prout
Hi, Re the notability. Prout is significant because he held one of the senior commands in the Irish Army during the Irish Civil War. He held the command for the whole south-east of Ireland and oversaw the taking of Waterford and the death of Liam Lynch, the anti-Treaty commander in the war. Jdorney (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: SystemJ
Hello Josh Parris, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of SystemJ - a page you tagged - because: articles about concepts are not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian  15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrestrial Physics
Hello, Just wanted to take the time to thatnk you for stopping by Terrestrial Physics. The points that you brought up are valid and will be addressed shortly ie. notiblity which will not be hard as I already have 5 sources to include but still refining in MS word, cats are already included. As far as the page name fork, the topic has been brought up on another of the sculptures of Jim Sanborn that until another article comes into the main space with a similiar name, that I should not disamb it. Any suggestions to aplease both sides of the isle on this :) ♠ B.s.n.   ♥ R.N.  10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Matthews (drug trafficker)
Hello. I was wondering why you think this article needs additional cites? I have a very detailed story by a highly regarded crime author (Black Caesar by Ron Chepesiuk) as well as two books that discuss the same information. What else do I need in your opinion? Also, I just added a PACER cite which, if you have a proper account (it's the federal court docket system which you must pay to access), you can access court documents which verify virtually everything the other 3 sources do.jlcoving (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Bucket
The page is tagged to death now - I don't understand why it is an orphan, it links up to the Clive James page doesn't it? To say it's all plot is dumb, there is no plot, its a precis of a work of criticism with examples of the acerbic style. If it doesn't meet the guidelines why don't you delete the article - I did something similar with Visions at Midnight, - it informs the reader of the article of the programmes reviewed and gives a flavour of the criticism. To tag it as lacking references seems a bit unthinking to me, look at the nature of the article. If it doesn't meet the rules for inclusion in the encyclopedia, delete it, otherwise leave it, understanding the nature of the article, it isn't going to have a lot of references is it ? Sayerslle (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DOS
It looks like you did just what needed to be done, but I wasn't sure about. The DOS disambiguation page needed a link to disk operating system. Your way works fine, too.

It wasn't as if I was adding links to unrelated items. DOS is an aberviation for Disk Operating System. It was silly to have a list of DOSs without linking to the main article. Lucifer-oxy (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ace candy
This page was recently speedy deleted as a redirect. FYI. Cynof G  avuf 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the newly created page on "Concrete failure" as "Concrete degradation"
Many thanks for cleaning the page on Concrete by making detailed pages with specialized sections. Indeed, it became too long.

Could I make a suggestion ?

A more appropriate name for the page on "Concrete failure" would be Concrete degradation.

Indeed, failure is the ultimate state occurring after degradation. And degradation can also cover a broad scope of different processes and stages.

Degradation is also a progressive process: disturbed stage, then damaged, and ultimately failed structures.

So, I would suggest you to rename this page as Concrete degradation.

What do you think ? Can you make it yourself ? Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't happy with failure and hoped someone (yay!) would suggest something else - but I wasn't going with "damage modes". Moved. Josh Parris 15:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Southwold
Re your recent edit, shingle in this case refers to a Shingle beach, not slate. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, edification. Thank you. Josh Parris 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Same for  Blakeney Point and    Weybourne.You need to check your edits as I have found other article with the same error. Please be more careful with your edits. --palmiped | Talk  17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Your robot assisstant missed here that the dablink was in the middle of a sentence and should not have been capitalized. Keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DaBing
When DaBing please be careful what you change links to. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANon-free_content%2FArchive_10&action=historysubmit&diff=326467173&oldid=326465895 βcommand 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was intentional. Jack Webb never said that, the phrase was coined in the Stan Friedburg sketch. Josh Parris 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tipsy (T-Pain)
I deprodded the article and I'm also the original creator. If you feel it's appropriate, please bring the issue to AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Chris McGrath (computer engineer)
Hello Josh Parris, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Chris McGrath (computer engineer) has been removed. It was removed by Ideabender with the following edit summary ' removed the deletion notice and submitted info on a Talk page. Appreciate any help. Thanks! '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ideabender before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Epsom Cluster
Looking at your disambiguation repair it seems to me that the new target is less correct than the prior disambiguation page. The Epsom Cluster was not competing businesses, but a cluster of public service hospitals run by the same management structure, servicing the same community, and working in harmony with each other as part of a growing development to keep the lunatics out of London. What think you? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "a geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field. Clusters are considered to increase the productivity with which companies can compete, nationally and globally." Don't get too hung up on the "business" part and it looks fine. Alternatively, you could go with agglomeration, but I think that's a little larger geographically.  Feel free to change it to whatever term you think, or remove the wikilink entirely. Josh Parris 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ponder awhile. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Links
Hi, some of the links that the robot you use changes are way off, so I will change what I can, but the robot needs to be given a much shorter leash. Cheers History2007 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not much in the way of bot, I select and are responsible for all the changes. What do you think I did wrong?  Your change at Marian apparition was more than reverting a mis-disambiguation, and I can't imagine a better link for Apparition in that article. Can you see any other changes you disagree with? Josh Parris 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To the Manor Born
I have reverted your change to To the Manor Born. Can you show evidence that Audrey fforbes-Hamilton is a Pastafarian? :) -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the flying spaghetti monster (blessed be his appendages) mistake several times. I was shooting for Tourism. I thought I caught them all. Note I immediately went to bed after that one - too tired to work!  Thanks, I'll put the correct dab in now! Josh Parris 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Spin-off
Hi Josh,

I'm glad you recognize the importance of disambiguation on Wikipedia; it's primarily what I do here too. I've let your two new entries stand on the Spin-off disambiguation page, but they really should have external sourcing on their respective articles demonstrating that the terminology is used in that manner. I've also reinstated the "see also" section to include the easily mistakable Off spin as well as Offshoot as it no longer redirects to Spin-off. I have also added the term "spin-off" to the two articles corresponding to the entries you introduced. Let me know if you wish to discuss either of these changes further.

Neelix (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominations at RfD
Just a friendly reminder that rearranging and sectioning off "nominees" in a deletion discussion can be (and usually is) very disruptive (as is interjecting in the middle of the nomination can lead to confusion as a result of the first part not having a signature). I have attempted to restore one such rearranged RfD nomination and put the interjected comments at the bottom of it (with clarification of context, but not otherwise altering your comments one iota). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't need to do that if you'd have one nomination per redirect; for the articles in question, they have different usage profiles. Josh Parris 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFD vote
Would you consider your vote here as changed? ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Robot gone rouge
Hi. Not every reference to "foreign exchange" should be changed to "foreign exchange reserves." Please tell your robot to stop messing up articles. Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be me... the "robot" is me using a specialized tool rather than a web browser. Which change did you think I chose something other than the best option for "foreign exchange"?Josh Parris 07:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please have again a look at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_6
I realized that I have written my text not clearly enough. I explained it again in other words. No key word will be lost if the redirect is deleted since the article has now the new name. I just cannot delete this technically nonsens redirect myself. Thanks for your understanding. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Update. I have seen that you have closed the discussion on this. Currently, it works; but only because someone reintroduced my workaround again (to redirect the Rh redirect to the Rh article page. If it was you, then thank you very much. This is probably still the easiest way to go since somehow nobody else realized it. But just to explain. If one starts typing Rh blood group into the search field, then 2 variants show up, one Rh blood group system (which is the article) and Rh Blood Group System (which is the redirect that was pointing to the other redirect with rhesus in it and now has been changed back to point to the Rh article itself). For me, this current workaround is OK; I just wanted the system to allow a proper solution. :-)
 * Thanks again, since you seemed to be the only person interested in this problem at all. Cheers, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I replied to your comment on my proposal :). Tim1357 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Lyons
I've had a go at cleaning up the above article. If you would like to have another look to see whether this affects your comments at the AfD that would be great. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Response
Hi, I've responded to your warning on my talk page. Thanks! -70.96.41.224 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Car
I reverted that vandalism just before I had to leave and do other things. The subsequent vandalism there (and your comment on my talk page) all occurred before the next chance I had to go online. And when I did go back online, I was focused on the return of a vandal who's been inserting hoaxes into Wikipedia for the last couple years under nearly 70 (so far) blocked socks. (See Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain.) Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne IPA edit war
Why not issue the same warning to the editor who has reverted two others, who continued edit warring after you got involved, and who has actually violated 3RR? kwami (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checking what I've done, one moment... Josh Parris 11:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. Basically, you were too fast for me. Josh Parris 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs stats
Hi, Josh. I'm doing a little project management work for the English Wikipedia FlaggedRevs rollout, and just wanted to say that I appreciated your thoughts at VPR. We're still working to figure out what stats we can do conveniently, and a lot of people have a lot of different hypotheses about what this will actually do, but we'll be working with Erik Zachte and hopefully can bring at least a little rigor to things. If you have more thoughts, please do email me or mention it on my talk page. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't panic: I've made big changes to WikiProject_Research/Research
I've moved around a lot of content in the article. To find a list of places content has been moved to, see the discussion I started about it. -- EpochFail (talk 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So if I leave you a message here you see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me Marvin (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Josh Parris/archive 1


text:
Talk:Classical theory and special relativity

I'm still not altogether happy with this page, I may have to consider a rewrite. ErkDemon 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not even sure it's an article at all: it reads like a draft for a paper. Encyclopedia articles aren't in first person, and they shouldn't contain original research or original theorizing, which parts of this appear to be. See What Wikipedia is not. - DavidWBrooks 02:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments: if that's the impression that the page gives, I obviously do need to improve it.

I don't think that there is any original research or theorising here. Einstein talked about the inconsistency of classical theory as part of his narrative when explaining special relativity, and it should be clear from modern SR texts that when they talk about the predictions of "classical theory", they are not talking about most pre-SR theories. For instance, most pre-SR theories (fully or partially dragged aether, moving aether, Newtonian emission theory) predicted that a detector aimed at 90 degrees in the lab frame to a moving object should report a redshift, due to aberration effects. This result was published (Lodge) and should have been pretty well known at the end of the C19th, and even if one didn't know about it, it only takes a little bit of trig to work it out. So, when you see a modern text on SR saying that "classical theory" predicted no redshift in this situation, you immediately know that for that statement to be true, the "classical theory" referred to in SR test theory must be referring to something different. Thanks, ErkDemon 04:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a rewrite. Hopefully its a lot better now. Criticisms still gratefully received. ErkDemon 22:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


title: File:Fkajl-mary-1.jpg


text:
Imperforate anus

An imperforate anus or anorectal malformations (ARMs) are birth defects in which the rectum is malformed. ARMs are a spectrum of different congenital anomalies which vary from fairly minor lesions to complex anomalies. The cause of ARMs is unknown; the genetic basis of these anomalies is very complex because of their anatomical variability. In 8% of patients, genetic factors are clearly associated with ARMs. Anorectal malformation in Currarino syndrome represents the only association for which the gene HLXB9 has been identified.

Types
There are other forms of anorectal malformations though imperforate anus is most common. Other variants include cloacal malformation, rectal atresia, rectal stenosis, and anterior ectopic anus. This form is more commonly seen in females and presents with constipation.

Presentation
There are several forms of imperforate anus and anorectal malformations. The new classification is in relation of the type of associated fistula.

The Wingspread classification was in low and high anomalies: Imperforate anus is usually present along with other birth defects—spinal problems, heart problems, tracheoesophageal fistula, esophageal atresia, renal anomalies and limb anomalies are among the possibilities, collectively being called the VACTERL association.
 * A low lesion, in which the colon remains close to the skin. In this case, there may be a stenosis (narrowing) of the anus, or the anus may be missing altogether, with the rectum ending in a blind pouch.
 * A high lesion, in which the colon is higher up in the pelvis and there is a fistula connecting the rectum and the bladder, urethra or the vagina.
 * A persistent cloaca (from the term cloaca, an analogous orifice in birds, reptiles and amphibians), in which the rectum, vagina and urinary tract are joined into a single channel.

Associated anomalies
Imperforate anus is associated with an increased incidence of some other specific anomalies as well, together being called the VACTERL association.

Other entities associated with an imperforate anus are trisomies 18 and 21, the cat-eye syndrome (partial trisomy or tetrasomy of a maternally derived chromosome 22), Baller–Gerold syndrome, Currarino syndrome, caudal regression syndrome, FG syndrome, Johanson–Blizzard syndrome, McKusick–Kaufman syndrome, Pallister–Hall syndrome, short rib–polydactyly syndrome type 1, Townes–Brocks syndrome, 13q deletion syndrome, urorectal septum malformation sequence and the OEIS complex (omphalocele, exstrophy of the cloaca, imperforate anus, spinal defects).

Diagnosis
When an infant is born with an anorectal malformation, it is usually detected quickly as it is a very obvious defect. Doctors will then determine the type of birth defect the child was born with and whether or not there are any associated malformations. Determining the presence of any associated defects during the newborn period in order to treat them early may avoid further sequelae. There are two main categories of anorectal malformations: those that require a protective colostomy and those that do not. The decision to open a colostomy is usually taken within the first 24 hours of birth.

Sonography can be used to determine the type of imperforate anus.

Treatment
Imperforate anus usually requires immediate surgery to open a passage for feces unless a fistula can be relied on until corrective surgery takes place. Depending on the severity of the imperforate, it is treated either with a perineal anoplasty or with a colostomy.

While many surgical techniques to definitively repair anorectal malformations have been described, the posterior sagittal approach (PSARP) has become the most popular. It involves dissection of the perineum without entry into the abdomen and 90% of defects in boys can be repaired this way.

Prognosis
With a high lesion, many children have problems controlling bowel function and most also become constipated. With a low lesion, children generally have good bowel control, but they may still become constipated. For children who have a poor outcome for continence and constipation from the initial surgery, further surgery to better establish the angle between the anus and the rectum may improve continence and, for those with a large rectum, surgery to remove that dilated segment may significantly improve the bowel control for the patient. An antegrade enema mechanism can be established by joining the appendix to the skin (Malone stoma); however, establishing more normal anatomy is the priority.

Epidemiology
Imperforate anus has an estimated incidence of 1 in 5,000 births. It affects boys and girls with similar frequency. However, imperforate anus will present as the low version 90% of the time in females and 50% of the time in males.

Imperforate anus is an occasional complication of sacrococcygeal teratoma.

History
7th-century Byzantine physician Paulus Aegineta described a surgical treatment for imperforate anus for the first time. 10th-century Persian physician Haly Abbas was the first to highlight preserving the sphincter muscles throughout the surgery and the prevention of strictures with a stent. He has reported the use of wine for wound care in this surgery. Some reports of children surviving this surgery are available from the early medieval Islamic era.

title: Imperforate anus


text:
List of radio stations in Saskatchewan

The following is a list of radio stations in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan,.

title: List of radio stations in Saskatchewan


text:
Talk:Assault & Flattery

Fair use rationale for Image:Toronto aaf.jpg
Image:Toronto aaf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Toronto & Holly Woods
Contrary to what is being said in the article, on the cover and the back of the booklet it clearly states that this is a record made by "Toronto & Holly Woods", so I changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.84.30 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Assault & Flattery