User talk:Rhetth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Rhetth, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurant categories

Hi, Rhetth! I noticed that you are doing some editing and organization of restaurant categories. The way categories work is sometimes non-intuitive, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Category. Unfortunately, in the case of regional hierarchies (as you probably have discovered) previous editors have not always been consistent in how they are applied and in preserving a true hierarchy. As it is, if you add a more specific subcategory, please be sure to remove any redundant parent categories (e.g., if you add Category:Restaurants in Missouri, you should remove Category:Restaurants in the United States); and usually we do not add nonexistent (redlinked) categories unless they are going to be populated (e.g., Category:Restaurants in Kansas City).

I have also been working on categorization and recategorization of restaurant articles, so I'm sure we'll run into each other again. You might be interested in looking at WikiProject Food and drink and help me restart the project. Cheers, MCB 00:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page semi-protection

Hi, Rhetth - I have semi-protected your user page, which should help keep it from being repeatedly vandalized by what appears to be a spambot. You (and other registered editors) can edit it, but anon IPs cannot. After a while we can remove the semi-protection and see if the spammer has moved on to other targets. Best, --MCB 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core

Hi. I removed the core (anatomy) link you added to the disambiguation page core, on the basis that disambig pages aren't glossaries, but a way to distinguish information that exists on Wikipedia and which may be confused with each other. Before I removed the link, I did some searching to see if I could find some other anatomy article that talked about "cores" which we could use in the entry, but couldn't turn anything up.

If you know of an article that discusses the anatomical concept of core, or if you wish to write a stub for core (anatomy), I'd be happy to reinstate the entry. Sanguinity 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good! I'm glad that we'll have something to link to soon. Thank you for taking that on. :-) Sanguinity 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There's some judgement call to it. The Manual of Style for Disambiguation pages has a discussion about when to disambiguate redlinks. If many articles already link to the redlink, then it's a good idea to disambiguate it. If nothing links to it, disambiguation is less important.

When I disambiguated all the links pointing to core, almost none of them had anything to do with core muscles, core strength, or related ideas. There are quite a few articles that could link to such a place, but no one was trying to. Personally, I would be okay with disambiguating that sense of "core".

As to how to disambiguate a redlink: it's bad form to have a redlink entry with no accompanying bluelink; it's bad form to have a redlink entry with a near-irrelevant bluelink, it's good form to have a redlink entry with a useful bluelink. Examples:

I'm Making This Up (band), a British rock band <-- Bad form: no bluelink
I'm Making This Up (band), a British rock band <-- Bad form: British is an unhelpful bluelink
I'm Making This Up (band), the childhood rock band of Tony Blair <-- If the Tony Blair article mentions the band, then this is good form. If the Blair article doesn't mention the band, then it's bad form.

Moot point -- you've already populated the article! Sanguinity 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sirtuins and Sir2

Hello, I see that you changed the Sirtuin redirect to a new page. Personally I'd prefer to have a single page discussing the sirtuins and Sir2 together, because almost all we know about sirtuins is about Sir2=SIRT1, the main study object of Sinclair et al. There are some other sirtuins, but comparatively little is known about them. The Sir2 article used to have an introductory sentence explaining that Sir2 is just one of the sirtuins, but that was recently removed and I just restored it. Your interesting information about sirtuin companies and history in sirtuin research could be merged with Sir2. Another option would be to merge both articles under the heading Sirtuin, which probably makes more sense since that's the larger concept. But of course it's your baby so if you prefer to keep them separate that's ok too. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Exercise physiology-stub}}

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it is already covered by existing stub types, it is not named according to stub naming guidelines, may not reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and is incorrectly formattd, with no dedicated stub category. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Monahan article at WP:FAC

Rhetth, I noticed you created the article on Monahan's screenplay Tripoli. I'm currently running the article on William Monahan through FAC. Would you mind chiming in with your opinion of the article and helping out with a copyedit if possible? I too hope one day Tripoli will be made into a film. I was glad to find your article.-BillDeanCarter 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andres Garcia Pena db

I gave a reason for the article. Please consider removal of the db templates. Thanks, Rhetth 23:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - an Administrator thought my tag correct, and deleted your article. If you still think he is worthy of an article, I suggest you create a stub page and create a draft. Quite happy to help you review this and create something suitable for inclusion if he passes WP:BIO. Rgds, - Trident13 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow what an insane article!

Wow I'm impressed! Thanks for asking me. I'll have a look a bit later (tomorrow possibly). Bit tied up at the minute. Make sure you have all fair use images. The other thing is inline referencing will be necessary. If you don't know how to do it I will do it tomorrow if someone doesn't help you out today. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

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

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. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Saami Family 1900.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

POTD

Hi Rhetth,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Saami Family 1900.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 11, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-11. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 1/1 situation

Since 1/6 redirects to 1st Battalion 6th Marines it seems to me that a redirect from 1/1 to 1st Battalion 1st Marines has that as a precedent. Do you want to change the redirect at 1/1 or would you like me to do it. --Drappel 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that a simple redirect will be the easiest, while 1/2 1/3 and 1/4 1/5 have managed to generate disambiguation pages because they have more than two possible answers many other 1/? have only redirects. Some month/day or day/month combinations have disambiguation pages and some do not and some go direct to rather unexpected results like 5/5 and some like 10/4 go nowhere (10-4 gets to the expected page). Anybody that feels a 1/1 redirect upsets them can make it a disambiguation page. I am all for being bold but allowing 10 days from your first post for debate on the talk pages allows anybody to have a say. --Drappel 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Lordosis.jpg

I've removed this image from Lordosis because the woman has not confirmed that she suffers from the condition (original conclusion), and she also has not given consent to act as a model for the condition (personal privacy).-Wafulz 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny timing that. I just visited this page to say as follows:

Hi,

Thanks for uploading an image of Lordosis. I've deleted it though, essentially for the same reason as above -- we have got no actual evidence this subject has a confirmed medical condition, and whether they do or don't, we need to be very careful before putting images of unsuspecting subjects into Wikipedia as examples of people with medical conditions. Effectively you'd want a medical source, or a statement of permission by an individual who confirms they have the condition and are okay with being the model, or a completely anonymous, clinical-style picture that shows nothing beyond a clinical view, pretty much.

The assumption that this person has that condition also is not made by a reliable source -- the flikr page seems to be by someone who might not know a medical condition from an exaggerated normal stance. So on all these counts I've removed it from Wikipedia.

Many thanks! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - response for you on my talk page! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion: Steve Siegfried

A tag has been placed on Steve Siegfried, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

CSD A3 and A7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Pepve 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Lehman's Restaurant

A tag has been placed on Lehman's Restaurant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Smith's Restaurant

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Smith's Restaurant, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Smith's Restaurant seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Smith's Restaurant, please affix the template {{hangon}} 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) 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of N-arachidonoyl-dopamine

A tag has been placed on N-arachidonoyl-dopamine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up :) PookeyMaster (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N-arachidonoyl-dopamine

I agree that this topic deserves a page, as my understanding is that all neurochemicals are automatically notable. I think you may have actually returned the speedy deletion tag by mistake that I had just removed (see the page history for details). Anyway, I hope the article stays in place; if someone tags it again, I'll be looking for that. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was it; although I'd be hard-pressed to point to the exact policy statement, my understanding is that all chemicals are automatically notable, and certainly neurochemicals. The speedy tagger had attached ((db-bio)) to the article, which didn't make much sense. This seemed, and seems, like a reasonable stub article (which could probably use the correct stub tag, if you could figure out what that is and add it). If there's something further I can do to help with this article, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for Bolzano-Cauchy-Weierstrass definition

You gave the page http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Weierstrass.html from the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive as citation for the authorship of the evolving epsilon-delta definition of continuity. But I don't find this mentioned in the MacTutor article: the names of Bolzano and Cauchy do not occur, and the only references to continuity are the mentions of Weierstrass's discovery of a nowhere-differentiable continuous function (a feat also ascribed to Bolzano in their Bolzano article) and of the fact that Weierstrass's approach still dominates teaching analysis today, mentioning the topic "continuity and differentiability" from his Introduction to the theory of analytic functions. Also, some "unreliable" sources like postings on discussion forums (see #9 here) appear to claim that in fact Cauchy's definition was less precisely formulated than Bolzano's. --Lambiam 09:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Davis

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Beth Davis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Beth Davis

I prodded it because I wasn't going to make an issue out of it. If the tag was removed, I wouldn't have AFDed it ;)--Nobunaga24 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StanleyKarnow.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:StanleyKarnow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mangostar (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD notice

An article that you created, List of military controversies, has been listed for deletion. You are invited to comment on the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of military controversies. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military controversies

I saved it, albeit on a computer at my office, and I'm at home right now. I can probably send it over to your talk page, but it will be a few days. I also recommend that you contact "JForget", the administrator who did the delete. They're usually pretty nice about such things. If you run into a problem with that, please let me know; sometimes, it will take awhile to get a response, but they will respond. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)