User talk:Rmky87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 February 3, 2007

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) 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Contents 1 New York Knickerbockers 2 Demotions 3 Medicine Collaboration of the Week 4 Thanks 5 Updates on TV tables 6 Assessments 7 Assessments II 8 Joanna Christie 9 Oklahoma City bombing 10 Go Board Game 11 Assessments III 12 It's March also on my calendar 13 Re:Firefly 14 GA review 15 Lawyer GA on hold 16 British Pharmacopeia 17 McCarthy, McCarthyism 18 Ho and others 19 Re: What on earth is this supposed to mean? 20 Recent comment : is scientific peer review over on the ascorbate page? 21 Andrew

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Medicine Collaboration of the Week

NCurse _work 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Lawyer GA on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Pharmacopeia

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

[edit] 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#Undue weight, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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." [1] --DrBat 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)