User talk:Rmky87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Hinduism

Nice edits on Hinduism. The columns look great! HeBhagawan 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!--Rmky87 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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:

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

Other links for reference: Wikipedia:Wikiquette, image copyright tags, Wikipedia: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?¿? 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Constitution of Syria

Just to let you know, you were completely right about what you were doing. I was tired at the time and I was reverting lots of pages. Sorry. DarthVader 06:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zonisamide

Thank you for your revisions to zonisamide. It looks really great. Terrace4 18:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

I see you are moving stuff to Wikisource. That's great. But you don't say so in many of your edit summaries, until challenged, and it makes it look like blanking-vandalism. Can I encourage you to read edit summary again and just put a brief message in the box? Cheers. -Splash 03:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transwikifying

I see that you have been enthusiastically jumping in to help out with transwikifying some recipes to Wikibooks, that's great. But, here are few thing to keep in mind if you move content to Wikibooks in future:

  1. Create an account on Wikibooks so that the people there know who you are.
  2. Add a note to the discussion page on Wikibooks, saying exactly where the content has been moved from, otherwise we don't know. It is preferable to copy the edit history there as well, to preserve attribution.
  3. Ensure that a page of the same name, but different capitalisation doesn't already exist on Wikibooks, if it does, then merge your content with it (as a different version of the recipe?).
  4. Attempt to wikify the content so that it conforms to the Cookbook's recipe template.

I'm sorry if that seems confusing, the job of transwikifying content carries great responsibility, and the more you can do at the time, the less work Wikibookians need to do to integrate your moved content. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

According to the Manual of Style, the level 1 headers are not normally used. Otherwise: very good pharmacology additions! JFW | T@lk 23:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User:134.193.149.115

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thanks.

Evidence of your blanking is here: [1]. DarthVader 16:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I only got the account to upload images, which I haven't gotten around to doing. Since there was so much I could do logged off, I just didn't bother logging in from this particular computer.

[edit] Billy Pilgrim

Please don't just remove tags when you disagree with them. I added the Merge tag yesterday to Billy Pilgrim so that there could be a discussion about it on the Discussion page if anyone, like yourself, were to disagree. I'm adding the Merge tag back now so that discussion can take place.

To answer your question in the edit comment, the reason Billy shouldn't have an article is that the article is not encyclopedic; there is nothing in the article that expands upon what's already in Slaughterhouse-Five, and by the nature of the article, there never will be, unless Vonnegut goes and writes another novel with Billy Pilgrim in it. Once the merge takes place then Billy Pilgrim will become a redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five. Feel free to respond on Talk:Billy Pilgrim if you disagree. Thanks. Tempshill 18:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank You for the heads-up on Korea Category. By the way, the discussion of "user page" in the Wik guide-lines is a Rube Goldberg text. If I didn't have an idea of what a user page was (by having seen some), there is no way I could have started mine following the elaborate and confusing discussion in Wik. (Actually, I started off doing just that and then gave up, since there was nothing labeled "user page' on my screen when I signed in and following the instructions literally got me no-where.)Kdammers 00:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User categorisation

Hi Thanks for your note about categorsing user pages and replacing lists of Wikipedians. I was already categorised as Category:Wikipedians in ACT. User IanBlair23 cateogorised my page and user AxSkov modified the categorisation. You may find you are following in others' footsteps. Regards--User:AYArktos(talk) 22:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NSW category

No, I won't add my name, because I don't like these state-based categories. Sydney, yeah, but not NSW. Tony 02:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User cats

Thanks for the message. Problem with the cat Category:Wikipedians in Trinidad and Tobago is that while I am from TT, I am not currently in, so it would not be an approprate category. (I am rather unhappy with the names of the user cats). Guettarda 03:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand your last message. I would like to add myself to a TT category, but I am enough of a pendant (which is why I hang out in an encyclopaedia) to be unhappy with a category which says "in Trinidad and Tobago". I wish I were there, but I am not. I'll probably add myself to the cat eventually, but for the moment the name of the cat is what prevents me from adding myself to it. Guettarda 03:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me why removed the List of Caribbean Wikipedians. The content on that page is not available elsewhere. At the very least you could have ensured that the content was transfered to the CWNB or some other such place. As is, you have removed an important resource without replacing it. I am rather upset with your actions. Guettarda 04:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite simply, before you delete resources that people are using, please discuss it at the very least on the appropriate talk page. If those names are scattered throughout a dozen sub-cats, how is anyone supposed to compile a single useful list of people? We are here to write an encylopaedia. While user cats are a pleasant aside, they are not central to the improvement of the encyclopaedia. A single list of Caribbean Wikipedians, on the other hand, allows editors to interact and collaborate. A scattered set of categories do not - misleadingly named categories, at that. You should really shouldn't be re-directing pages without discussing the redirect with the editors actively involved with the page. At the very least you should make a cogent argument, and then give people a day or two to consider your proposal and reply to them. You really need to have a little more consideration for your fellow editors and what they are trying to achieve here. Guettarda 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Wikipedians

Huh? Guettarda 03:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. I don't appreciate being told that I have to prove to you why a useful resource is useful. Since when must I justify to you what resources I use?
  2. It isn't a matter of doing things that absolutely cannot be done in any other way. If you are willing to track down new editors and ask them if they have any interest in the Caribbean, and let me and everyone else interested in the Caribbean the identity of these users, and keep informing us of the updated list of people (so I don't have to search through the history of my talk page) and...
  3. WTF, dude???

Please show me where conforming to someone's ideas of "order" outweighs the ability to have useful tools? This is about writing an encyclopaedia, not about conforming to your idea of order and structure. It's more convenient to have to list. No one is paying me for my time here. Why shouldn't we have tools that are convenient? Show me where there is consensus on this "policy decision" that these lists should be replaced with categories?

I am totally baffled. Please read WP:CIVIL. If this bothers you so much I suggest you bring an RFC against me - I have no interest in making editing more difficult because it somehow bothers you. Guettarda 03:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Drugbox

Could you say something at the talk page for the template about your reasoning behind reverting changes to the template? If there are aspects of the old version that are not supported by the new version, please let them be known so they can be incorporated into the new version. Courtland 13:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User Categorisation

Ok, thanks! --Quadraxis 15:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks from me too man, i would not have known to update my category. – Fudoreaper 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, now if I can only figgure out wtf I was doing lised in Ontario... Weaponofmassinstruction 01:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] in X Place?!!

You left me a message asking that I might want to be listed under Wikipedians in Nigeria. Well, I am not in Nigeria. I have been on WikiVacation for a while, so just started paying attention to this. As one or two folks above have said, the new "User in Location" scheme makes absolutely no sense to me. Most of the places I can contribute information about are not the place I live in right now. I would be okay with having a new categorization scheme for who's where, but to do away with a way of listing oneself by places one is interested in and has information to offer about makes, I said, no sense to me. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


I seem to recall that one of the new categories (I think it was one of the Canadian ones) had the information from the old list copy-pasted into it. This was for people who did more than just add their names to the list. You could do something similar for whatever category.
Thank you for not acting like it's the end of the world if Wikipedia decides to go with something that actually sorts itself and where it's harder to categorize someone without his or her knowledge (I've had at least one person tell me that he or she had no idea that he or she'd been listed on "Wikipedians/X."--Rmky87 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

On the first point, I would either be lying (I am non IN Nigeria, Pakistan, or India) or be left out. Neither choice leaves a good taste in my mouth.

On the second point, we could have gone to Categories (solving the "sorts itself" thing) without changing the definitions of ALL the categories--there are a couple of ones that are still relatively sane--like Category:Russian Wikipedians. I say relatively because that wouldn't work with respect to me and two of the three possible categories above.

If I had the bandwidth, I would have worked harder at trying to help move this to a saner resolution...

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benzodiazapine pages

Would you be interested in collaborating on a project to standardize all of the benzodiazepine-related pages? There is quite a bit of information available on all of the related substances, but I feel a need to implement a template before beginning to add more information to any of them. Fuzzform 23:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Project Benzo

Well, no there wouldn't be any deadlines; it would be fairly informal. We could decide who would work on what pages in advance. I've been thinking about what each page should consist of, and I've noted my ideas on my userpage. The idea here is to get feedback from one another. I was looking for someone with a general knowledge of the pharmacology of sedatives, so naturally I came upon you. You can contribute as little or as much as you'd like. I just saw an obvious need for a cleaning-up of the articles (they deserve their own series, seperate from barbituates and other non-traditional sedatives) and felt that it would take months or years if I tried such a project alone (I'm somewhat strapped for time myself). Let me know what your thoughts on the issue are.

Hmm... just realized that perhaps what I am proposing is a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs.

Fuzzform 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myoclonus / Myoclonic seizure

What I actually suggested was the opposite of what you say, i.e. that the article about the seizures be merged into the article about myoclonus. My rationale was that there was (and still is) very little information on the seizure page, and that it would make more sense alongside the 'normal' (non-pathological) variant of the condition. I'm happy to leave them separate, however.

As an aside, I don't agree that myoclonic seizure is a disease per se - the disease is epilepsy, surely, and it's a symptom of that disease?

Ta, Nick.

[edit] Stiripentol and Paraldehyde

I've added the article Stiripentol and contributed to Paraldehyde, which are anticonvulsants that I am personally familiar with. I would like them to appear on the Anticonvulsants article and template but don't know how to go about that. It would appear I need a new template for the drug groupings. The best grouping description I have found for Stiripentol is "aromatic allylic alcohols", but I can't find any Wikipedia articles specific to that. I'm not knowledgeable enough to start one.

Would you be willing to do the necessary work to get these into the article and template? I see from the history and your user page that you've done a bit of work on this template and on other anticonvulsant drugs. Thanks. --Colin Harkness 10:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the work on List of ICD-10 codes. I did a little formatting on your epilepsy additions; I hope you don't mind. One thing I wanted to check -- you had Epilepsia partialis continua under G40.9, but I see it under G40.5, but maybe I'm using an old source. --Arcadian 04:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Aluminium

Whoa there, no need to be so aggressive. Why not calm down a bit before posting something like that? After all, this is about an easily removable template tag, not the end of the world.

I had originally only been looking at the section Precautions, which, even currently, has zero references. As it makes a fair amount of claims, I was going to just add a section tag, and then I looked up and saw another section, Isotopes, which makes more claims and still has no references. Then I looked up at Natural occurrence, which despite having over ten paragraphs and three equations, has only one reference! And it's a reference about Suriname's economy, no less, offering no insight at all into the equations and everything else in the section. That's a sampling of why I put the tag up: if you'd like more examples I can give them.

In an article with technical information that would be well over five or six pages, you have a total of nine references, one of which doesn't have any information about what you used from it. Although {{unreferenced}} is intended for articles with no references, I think that it was and is wholly appropriate for this article. Articles must cite their sources, and this one doesn't, or doesn't very well. Blackcap (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up again, as you seemed unpleased with this last time I added a tag. Four months have passed, and there's still no more references. I've put up a {{verify}} tag, in the hopes that it will find some. Take care, Blackcap (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure :). Blackcap (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benzo-project begun

So, I've finally begun the project I had proposed some months ago. I rewrote diazepam, and I've been steadily cleaning up and expanding the other benzodiazepine articles. I'd like your feedback on the diazepam page, if you get some time to read it. Also, if you want to help out at all with my benzo-project, check out my userpage (I've listed notes on improvements to be made for each page). I'm trying to have all the benzo pages follow the same format as diazepam, as the infobox is complete (and easier to read than the old infobox), and it has substantial sections for each topic (e.g. pharmacology, indications, etc.). Your input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Fuzzform 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lennox-Gastaut syndrome

I've noticed you've added extra info to the ketogenic diet section in the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome article. The detail is welcome but surely it would be better placed in the ketogenic diet article.

The epilepsy article contains two paragraphs on the ketogenic diet, which (whilst not perfect) contain IMO just enough info for their location. I think that the LGS article merits even less text on the diet, unless there is something specific to LGS to discuss --Colin Harkness 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Tofisopam

Oh no, I believe you... hehe. Thanks for pointing that out. I had created all the pages using format templates. Technically, under the Analogue Act, any substance sturcturally related to existing scheduled substances is also scheduled under the same category. Silly law, but it makes it easier to define what is illegal and what is not. In either case, I'm sure possession is illegal, even with a prescription. Problem is, many of the benzodiazepines I added are not really used anywhere. They've just been patented. Fuzzform 02:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, edit away on tofisopam. I think it just needs to be pointed out that it is a 2-3 benzodiazepine, and it affects different synaptic sites than the 1-4 benzos do.

[edit] WikiProject Missouri

Dear Rmky87, I am beginning the process to create a wikiproject for Missouri. in order to do so i'm required to show that there is a base of at least 5-10 people who would be interested in contributing to such a project. the project would serve to aid in the creation and editing of articles related to the U.S. State Missouri, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history, education, and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Missouri in a fair and accurate manner. Since you're stated as being a wikipedian in missouri, i wanted to see if you were interested. if you are, please add your username at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Missouri and User:Preschooler.at.heart/Missouri. thanks for your consideration. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

For example, I'm puzzled why you removed the pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov link from Fluacizine --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The PubChem link is now available near the top of the drugbox.--Rmky87 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice that looking at the diffs alone. That why's I urge you to start using edit summaries. It makes life a hell of a lot easier for the Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification updates

Is there a reason why you update the wikification progress chart so frequently? The general consensus amongst us wikifiers is to update it daily (twice daily at most if a category reaches a particular milestone). Also, why do you do each category in seperate edits? Why can't you just update all the months in one edit? Metros232 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] strange thing

In the stub note you just wrote, there appears on my screen a purple word that looks sort of like 'st^b . I suppose this is supposed to be IPA for "stub", but why here? Kdammers 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apparently.--Rmky87 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] well done

Well done on repairing the article on Albanian language, I didn't expect such prompt intervention. Thanks! -- 131.111.8.102 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Your updates are still very unproductive. You're updating 1 month with 1 article change at a time. Is there a point to this? This is not helping the Wikify project. We like to be able to track our progress each day...seeing an update every minute isn't helping that. Would you please drop your edits down to one edit per day to update all the months at the same time? Thanks, Metros232 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not while I still have to move articles that were tagged during October out of September.--Rmky87 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't need to know that. You don't need to update to let us know that you moved one article from September to October. What we do need to know at the end of the day is that we have 75 less in one category and 150 less overall. Those are things that matter to us. Not "I did one article." Metros232 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I had looked forward to seeing the depressingly huge September category become smaller on a consistent basis finally and was most displeased to see it growing by leaps and bounds (I once had to add 26!). I couldn't see who was doing and didn't know who to yell at to make it stop. I finally found who was doing most of it and am now going through his or her user contributions page to correct that. I love seeing September get smaller, even if it's only one article at a time. The articles have a greater chance of being noticed in a smaller category, anyway.--Rmky87 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That's great that you love to see them get smaller...we all do...but we don't care if one article gets done at 7:32 and then another article gets done at 7:45. What we care about is "how much progress did we make in the last 24 hours?" If you feel want to track it on your own, I'd suggest creating your own subpage, something like User:Rmky87/progress and tracking it yourself, this way we can keep the template for our daily updates instead of your personal "I want to make numbers go down because otherwise it's depressing!" edits. Thanks, Metros232 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the "otherwise it's depressing" edits apply only to those edits that were improperly dated. Actually, it was more like, "really, really, annoying." Right now, I'm correcting something that was really, really, really annoying to watch go on. I'm just trying to shrink September down to its true size (whatever that is by the time I'm done). This is really just people watching.--Rmky87 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion - if you want to do the updates every 10 mins, could you then (maybe your first update of the day?) do a comparison with the update you did at approximately the same time the previous day, so we have a useful gague of how much progress we are making? I think that is the key thing here, that we want to know how we're getting on over time.-Ladybirdintheuk 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Date changes

Hiya, I noticed that you've been modifying several articles, changing "uncat|September 2006" to "uncat|October 2006". May I ask why? The articles were indeed tagged in September, and having an older date on them is actually helpful, as it means they'll be dealt with more quickly (since the categorization crew tends to start with the oldest backlog, and work their way forward). Or is there some other reason that I'm unaware of? I mean, I agree that the September category is depressingly large, but the way to deal with it is to actually categorize articles in it, not just change the date on the tag. --Elonka 20:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no they weren't. Check your edit history. It was October 1 in GMT, which is the time that Wikipedia uses. I was looking forward to seeing September get only smaller and then all of a sudden there's 26 more articles there needing to be wikified (there was more, but that one was especially memorable). Did you date them manually or did you subst it in?--Rmky87 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I date them by the time on my Wikipedia interface and history, which shows the edits as September. I mean, I'm not going to go through and revert your edits to argue about whether it was September or October, but I think it's an enormous waste of your time to be making those kinds of changes, when you could be doing actual useful categorization work in the meantime. The feeder for these tags is from Special:Uncategorizedpages, which generates two thousand articles per week. Initially it just went up to the "Bs" in the alphabet, but through concerted effort, we've got it up to the "Ds" on its bi-weekly reset. If you'd like to follow the progress, check Wikipedia_talk:Special:Uncategorizedpages#Stats/progress. As for the backlog, I agree it's sizable. My recommendation is to pick one single letter in the September category (I'm currently working on "K") and concentrate on knocking it down. The October category is going to grow rapidly at this point, especially since we're requesting a faster refresh rate on the cache. --Elonka 20:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIFAL

Thank-you for pointing out the failings of this article. Mea culpa. Categorisation is now in place and as a penance I shall attend to a few other uncategorised pages. Some wikifying of the article has now been undertaken, but a week into my Wikipedia career I am not sure if I have sufficient experience to justify removing the tag. Arguably it is a stub rather than a complete article, but that apart I can’t see anything obviously wrong. I’d appreciate your comments.

Ben MacDui 20:26 2 October 2006

The CIFAL page refers. Now that I have a clearer grasp of the history and editing I see that you altered the {{uncat|September 2006}}{{wikify|September 2006}} dates to October (which may have been an automatic process), and that 'Elonka' was the party who originally added these tags using the mysterious AWB. It occurs to me that the original lack of a category may have resulted in an automatic request to wickify. Either way I may be wasting your time, for which my apologies. I will tempt fate and remove the {wikify}} tag. BM 21:21

[edit] Is this necessary?

Is it necessary for you to [2] remove a wikification tag, then report it on the template [3]. This being 2 minutes after you updated it to let us all know that in the last hour, we gained 1 in October and lost 3 in September. What is your rationale behind that? Metros232 15:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I just wanted to.--Rmky87 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wikified Aqaba Flagpole if you want to update our progress. Metros232 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rmky87 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And someone wikified Alutor too. Metros232 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And I wikified Andrew Solomon now. Metros232 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again.--Rmky87 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
And now I've tagged Arnala for copyvio, so that's not in the category anymore. Metros232 02:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)‎

Wingfield High School is done. Metros232 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and 6th U.S. Coast Artillery. Metros232 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Now Alan Bloom is tagged as copyvio, so it's out of the category. Metros232 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Vista del Lago High School is wikified. Metros232 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bedwig is now a redirect so that's out of the category. Metros232 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Building Big (book) is wikified. Metros232 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony Tost done. Metros232 03:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychosis

I noticed all the good work you've done at psychosis, and was wondering if you are aiming to save it from FARC, and if we should holf off and re-evaluate the Keep/Oppose votes? There are 3 "Remove" votes so far, but it your aim is to complete the work, we can hold up and re-evaluate. Please drop a note at the FARC page letting us know. Thanks, Sandy 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Erfe

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Benjamin Erfe. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Ineffable3000 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for noticing that. --Ineffable3000 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Rmky87 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your unfair and biased calls for deletion

Please read last entry: [4]

[edit] Uhh...

Re: your edit here with the edit summary "It was 10 hours into November according to GMT and I'm going through this again!" [5]. Take a look at when it was tagged...October 29th. [6]. THat's a tad bit before 10 hours into November. Metros232 14:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I'm going to be reverting some of your updates of tags. A lot of the tags you've changed to November instead of October WERE tagged in October, however, they were only tagged with {{wikify}}. The updates in November are just a bot like Pearle changing the tag from {{wikify}} to {{wikify-date}}. So technically, they've been tagged for wikification from October...the user just didn't use the proper tag so the bot is putting it into the month it was tagged, not the month it is when the bot updates the tag. Hope this clears things up. Metros232 14:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have an issue with the way these tags are being updated, leave at message at User talk:Pearle. But what the bot is doing is correct...it's finding out when the first wikify tag was put on the article and updating it from that month. It's not that there' some time difference that needs to be updated on the bot or anything. Metros232 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. At least there weren't so damn many this time.--Rmky87 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (House)

It looks like you have this situation under control. When you get done killing off all the copyvio bits, feel free to just remove the listing from the copyright problems page; I'll check it when you do to make sure everything looks kosher, and all should be well. --RobthTalk 05:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly are the remaining problems?--Rmky87 05:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
None, that I know of, if all the sentences Quadell picked out are fixed to your satisfaction. I just wasn't sure you'd rephrased all of those yet. --RobthTalk 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Do they look rephrased to you? I'm not always good at this sort of thing, and I'm surprised that I can do it at all right now (witness what happened with psychosis. Then again, the prose and referencing issues were far more extensive).--Rmky87 12:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Rmky87 01:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harjinder Singh Khurana

Hi Rmky87: Can you please help me in wikifying the following page: Harjinder Singh KHurana Thanks in advance!

I've already done some cleanup. Here is WP:MOS and you might want to find some sources for that last paragraph.--Rmky87 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget categorization.

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks Rmsky for editing n'Harjinder Singh Khurana'.

Please advise how to get it to google.

Thanks@

Buh? Won't google see this page anyway? I do not understand.--Rmky87 04:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

i have been searching it on google for days but it doesn't show up. Can you think of any particular reasons?

That's funny: it shows up when I do it.

[edit] Reddish Lads

It's been recreated, as you can see, and there were no categories until I tagged it, nor were any references nor claims to the effect that they really deserve an article here. And they don't use "hangon", they just remove the tags, including the wikification tag.--Rmky87 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Admin has since re-deleted it and I ahve now protected it from recreation - so hopefully this will be the end of it! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!--Rmky87 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurts So Bad, copy vios, and blanking content

I did blank the copyright violations. You blanked the whole article, much of which was not a copyright violation. Please restore the non-copyright violations. --Walter Görlitz 21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Rmky87 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome.--Rmky87 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Miguel Torga

You removed a great deal of text from Miguel Torga, with no edit summary. Could you please provide some rationale? —Swpb talk contribs 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was painfully obvious copyvio from here.--Rmky87 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, just consider providing an edit sum for such drastic changes ;) —Swpb talk contribs 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay.--Rmky87 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Barr (artist)

Re: your speedy request for William Barr (artist), I don't blame you but I tried to bring it to AFD and failed. Read that AFD for a good laugh - apparently everyone was snowed by how nice all the unreferenced content looked and sounded and how nice the pictures were. I've since removed all the content and the pictures - the pictures were definitely copyvio and the content probably was too. But this is a good example of why they're expanding the horizons of WP:CSD - because WP:AFD is fast becoming a joke. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could stick on WP:AFD again, like I did Benjamin Davies (photographer). Here's the AFD for the original version with its shitty title.--Rmky87 02:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Greco

Please can you reconsider opposition to El Greco nomination after reading my response [7], thanks Tom 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not until those {{fact}}-tags are dealt with.--Rmky87 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subrabharathimanian

First, your message to me addresses notability but you tagged it with {{db-spam}}, not {{db-bio}}. Go ahead and db-bio it and see if another admin bites (I'll leave it alone). Second, wanting to delete it because it's on the list of pages to be wikified is a terrible reason! I hope you're not serious about that. If that's so important, then wikify it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my sole reason, but I knew that his lack of true notability would be sufficient to keep him from being wikified, ever, especially by the end of November. The Wikification project is how I know that this article even exists. Lack of Wikification is the LEAST of this article's problems.--Rmky87 20:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the db-bio tag as well. The article certainly asserts his notability. You could prod it, but taking it to AFD would be better. If he is notable to Tamil readers, the article is more likely to be noticed and cleaned up that way. Upp◦land 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adelaide University Football Club

It seems strange that you've decided to target this article for deletion. Other football club articles relate to by far less noteworthy Australian Rules Football teams eg. Sydney University Students AFC or Balmain Australian Football Club. There are many more like this. What are you hoping to achieve? Ozdaren 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's called, "articles concerning unnotable tend to stay unwikified." I swear, there are people who think that getting a Wikipedia page will make them famous and everyone who comes to Wikipedia is going to see it just because they put it there and that's just not true. If you're notable, then no hardly anyone is going to see your page without hitting "Random article" or joining the Wikification. By the way, according to User:Daduzi, that is not a legitimate argument for the retention of an article.--Rmky87 02:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WildStorms: The Expandable Super-Hero Card Game

I removed your prod, because the Card Game is real, and as an extension of a notable franchise, I believe it needs to be kept, or at least, given an AfD. I could probably stand to see it merged with the main page for Wildstorm comics, too. Mister.Manticore 06:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You took down my article on Antonio Giordano, M.D., Ph.D., saying it was a copyright infringement. I am the author of the original material on the article and have just posted a release notice on the site where the bio is located on www.shro.org. I have also e-mailed wikipedia telling them it is Not an infringement.

Can I have my contribution back up?

Send to mice30@comcast.net

Not until they get back to you. Obviously, you could lying for all I know. I notice you mention nothing about them getting back to you. If and when they do (your article would have a special tag on its talkpage indicating that this was true), please wikify it properly.--Rmky87 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify

Hi. I noticed you tagged Aliens versus Predator: Extinction recently with a wikify tag. From what I can see, the article already meets the manual of style. Furthermore, the tag you added was done in November 2006, and it was dated for August 2006. Is there a erason for this? Regards. -- Whpq 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I only tagged it because some moron had inserted Category:Wikify from August 2006 and Category:Cleanup from August 2006 at the bottom instead of using the tags. You may remove them if they are not needed.--Rmky87 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I remove them -- Whpq 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome.--Rmky87 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Subrabharathimanian and Chayathirai

The reason given for PROD was small number of Google hits, which I don't feel is valid for non-English authors and books, esp. Tamil ones. So, I unprodded the articles. If you have been following WP:DSI, you're probably aware that Google hits are not a indicator of notability or non-notability in all cases. For example, Nikhil Parekh was deleted inspite of 120,000 Google hits, while many others with around ~100 Google hits have been kept (see for example Billoo -- hardly any of the Google hits are about the cartoon character). "Chayathirai -wikipedia" gives 220 Google hits. "Subrabharathi Manian" -wikipedia (21 hits) and "Subrabharathimanian -wikipedia" gives 55 hits. I think these articles deserve an AfD. You've already nominated Chayathirai. I've moved Subrabharathimanian to AfD as well. utcursch | talk 07:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!

[edit] Prod tag at Amiot

I removed prod tag from this page, I think AfD is necessary. If you still think it is an article for deletion please escalate AfD there. Tulkolahten 10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Testament apocrypha

In response to your comment on my flagging of the article New Testament apocrypha as a possible copyright violation:

"Um, excuse me, but aren't you supposed to blank existing content?"

In this case, I did not know which came first, the website or the article? If the website was based on the article and not vice-versa, then the article is not violating anything, so I let the article sit for a while. Seeing no response from the author of the article, I have now reverted it to a list format. 69.140.173.15 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printmakers

Hi!, I notice you are doing some re-categorising on these. I have avoided this, as the situation is rather chaotic. As you know you have the "Printmakers by nationality", which is incomplete & raises certain questions re the Netherlands & migrants. Then you have "Artists by genre" (or type-I forget - "Italian engravers" etc, which is also very incomplete, has no category for many types of print (notably "woodcut") & nationalies & is compromised because so many artists used several print techniques.

I hate to put you off but I suspect these issues should be raised & discussed before rearranging.

btw, if you thing this is bad - look at Commons!

Do you have a suggestion for an overall strategy? Some of you changes seem to work in opposite directions. Unfortunately not that many editors are interested. Johnbod 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I just go by where the person was born and whether or not s/h/it was categorized under printmakers.--Rmky87 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English writing software

I noticed you'd flagged this as a copyvio (which it is). Since it's an *exact* copy, it can actually be speedied with db-copyvio - I've added the speedy tag as well. Thanks! Perel 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I love the dramatic flair of a page blank (and not having to up the December article count more than I have to).--Rmky87 16:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I have no problems with the concept of removing articles or reverting articles that are proven cases of violating copyright. However, I noticed that you are tagging articles as screaming COPYVIO and blanking them. Do you have a criteria which makes you decide what articles are copyvios? --- Skapur 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I've blanked them. Reverted them to much shorter versions, yes, but I didn't blank them. When I see large chunks of unwikified text added to a stub, I get suspicious.--Rmky87 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I would get suspicious too but I am afraid of accusing some one of copyvio (a serious crime in most countries) without proof. And yes, you do revert and do not blank (my mistake). I am also afraid that the person who added the unwikified text just may not know how to wikiy text or they may be adding text from a non-copyrighted source (e.g. US Government publications) or it may be something they themselves wrote for some other publication and hold a copyright too. --- Skapur 17:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The layout of Hippocrates

Hello! You just removed the tabling system from the current FAC Hippocrates. Would you please explain why you did that? I think it's a rather practical layout... Maybe we should discuss it on the FAC page? I've reverted your change in the meantime, but depending on what the consensus is, your version might stand. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because someone on the FAC page insisted.--Rmky87 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your Lizzie Borden reversion back to October 22

Hi, I just saw that you have removed almost two months of editing work from Lizzie Borden. I'm no expert on Lizzie and perhaps you are -- but are you certain no useful edits were made since Oct. 22? I realize there's been some vandailsm, as is always the case, but it does seem like there have been a lot of informed and well-intentioned edits in there, as well. thanks, Shawn in Montreal 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, you were right. Much more seemed to have been lost than gained since Oct. 22. Please disregard. That's still one unruly list in Artistic Depictions and would benefit from sub-sections based on genre, but I'll try to get to that later. If you like, please reapply the list clean up tag, as I don't believe it did correctly last time. Shawn in Montreal 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. I've taken a crack at structuring and sub-categorizing that Lizzie Borden list. While more work still needs to be done, I think it's much improved and so I've also taken the liberty of removing the "clean up" tag. No longer a problem list, I think. Shawn in Montreal 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Would you accept a nomination for adminship? I've noticed your work identifying copyvios for some time now, and I can see you've also been wading in to the backlog on the wikification categories. I think you'd be a great administrator, and if you're ok with it I would like to nominate you. --RobthTalk 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends. What else does an admin have to do?--Rmky87 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You're not required to do anything, actually; if you really want to, you can ignore the tools completely. There are certain tasks that the tools are very useful for, though, and you're already very involved in one such task, identifying copyvios. Blatant copyvios of the sort you come across while going through unwikified articles can be speedied, and it would save time and effort for you and others if you had the tools to do it yourself as you came across them. Beyond that, I suspect your experience would be fairly similar to mine; I've used the delete button thousands of times, mostly for dealing with copyvios or fair use problems, but have used the other two buttons only a dozen or so times in my three months as an admin. What we really need in administrators (in my opinion) is people who have shown that they are willing to work hard on the thankless task of reducing backlogs; the work you've done with wikification demonstrates that you are willing to do that, and the delete button will certainly be helpful to you in that work. That alone is a good reason to make you an admin, in my opinion, but another advantage is that, with the delete button, you could help out when you have time on the copyright problems page; there are very few users who are willing to dig in and spend time dealing with copyvios--only a few admins do serious work on that page, and we're backlogged there at the moment. Another person who could help out there from time to time would be a great thing to have. So I hope you'll consider running. --RobthTalk 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That is starting to sound like a plan. How do I run? Oh, and is it legal to delete articles that haven't been speedy-tagged as long as they're blatant copyvio? I would love to do that instead of worrying that the dummy who put it up is going to revert it like an overly emotional moron (I'm surprised this hasn't happened with the more recent copyvio where there's a chance that whoever put it isn't just a one-edit wonder).--Rmky87 23:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you decide to run, I will prepare a nomination page for you; there are questions on the standard nomination form for the nominee to answer, which you would fill out. Administrators are indeed able to delete blatant copyvios without a waiting period, as per WP:CSD#G12. You should take a look through Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list--not everything there will prove useful or relevant for the kind of work you would be likely to focus on, but it's good to have a broad sense of the nature of the job. Look through those pages a bit, let me know if you're interested, and if you are I'll nominate you. --RobthTalk 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/m/k/User_talk%7ERmky87_36f1.html"