User talk:Richard001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I generally post or reply on a user's own talk page, and prefer that other users reply here as I often neglect to watch their talk page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page.

Archives
User talk:Richard001/Archive User talk:Richard001/Archive 2 User talk:Richard001/Archive 3

[edit] Potential error in Batesian mimicry section

Check the Batesian mimicry discussion page for explanation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.229.166 (talk • contribs) on 01:07, 21 April 2008

[edit] Kingfisher

Please see page, clarification required.Andycjp (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a malformed, incomplete FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Free will‎ when checking the category. If you intend to submit this to WP:FAR, please read all of the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page and complete the process correctly, including notifications. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have thought I had finished and got distracted. I did read the instructions, just didn't follow through with all of them. I've notified the main contributor, and anyone else interested should be watching the page and have noted my many past comments about this. I've also notified the philosophy and religion projects, though the original nominator is from so long ago it isn't even recorded on the template. Richard001 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgenics

I notice that you've kept an eye on this article, and I think it really needs your help. It's all the same to me whether you accept or reject the dysgenic hypothesis; my impression is that most of the editors just aren't familiar with what's in the scientific literature where such familiarity is badly needed. Harkenbane (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually been watching this article at all; I've just dropped by every now and then. I also know too little about the subject to help, though I hope to read a book or two in the eugenics area some time. Richard001 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to heterotroph

You're right, Richard. Thanks a lot!! Best regards from Mexico City!--correogsk (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Genetics

I've created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics page, please join if you're still interested! At the moment it's pretty bare looking, but I figured everyone could chip in with things to add to the page. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

Perhaps I was too short regarding the lead of the article, which has traditionally been my problem in trying to upgrade an article to GA class. I have included additional information, and it is now 2 paragraphs. I didn't want to go into details explaining every climate type in the lead, because I was afraid the lead would become too long. It's now 2 paragraphs. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete Template:Book cover?

You don't seem to provide any rationale. The redirect seemed useful (I reached this myself and was going to (re)create it before I saw the deletion history note. What other use could a template for a book cover have? Free covers wouldn't need such a template. Richard001 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I should have left a better deletion summary. I deleted the redirect because it was unused and doesn't start with the required "Non-free" prefix, see Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. Book covers that are about 100 years old or so are actually in the public domain, so a public domain template should be used instead. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fishproject

Hi Richard. Per your 12 March 2008 request, I added assessment parameters to Template:Fishproject. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from here) Hi Richard. I fixed the importance category and this edit fixed the additional brackets problem. I had requested Happy-melon's assistance with the additional brackets problem. He posted an alternate code. I don't belong to the Fishes project, so please feel free to decide how you want to proceed with the project banner code. As for top importance, I gave ocean sunfish a top importance only because it was an FA article. Please feel free to revise any importance or quality rating as you see fit. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Utilitarianism, average and total welfare

Richard, I am aware that I push the envelope. However, I strive to do so in a respectful way.

On population size, by saying that the ‘answer’ is somewhere in the middle, I feel I am merely pointing out the obvious, am setting the stage so to speak, so that someone else might make progress.

On the ‘dilemma-fication’ of ethics, I don’t feel I did that part as well, but it’s the same goal: setting the stage so that someone else might make progress.

Since Parfit published Reasons and Persons in 1984, has there been any progress regarding average vs. total welfare? At all?

And I ask you to please reread your post to me. In part, in part, you spoke to me as if I were a child or social inferior.

And I would suggest a pause. When I post something that in your judgment detracts from the article, please pause and see if anyone else deletes it. If you find that you’re the only person deleting my postings (which is merely one possible future situation) that would probably not be a real constructive situation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I assessed it that way becuse I thought it met the overall standard at the time. Articles and standards change. If that has happened: change the rating. If you just disagree: change it. If you can't come to me with something constructive: don't bother. Be positive! Inge (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the GA standards didn't require the lead to meet the lead section guidelines at the time you assessed. That's the problem with A-class: it's presented as being superior to GA class on the scale (some say the GA/FA thing is different from other ratings, but if that was the case why can we give something a rating of GA or FA without any other?), yet there are no clear 'A-class' criteria. Surely if a GA can be 'moved up' to an A-class, the A-class rating should be restricted to articles that are better than GAs. I have changed the rating to a B, but I don't think it's enough just to change the rating without telling the rater why I don't think it met the standard. If I don't do this, people will keep giving out ratings that are too high. Perhaps I could try to sound more positive, but I would hope that pointing this problem out to you is in some way constructive. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to archive

Hi, I've taken your advice and done the first archive of my talkpage. Thanks for suggesting it. I read the how-to page, but there's something I don't understand. The new page has a redlink at the top, suggesting that I have no user page, but of course I do. Do you know how I can fix that? BrainyBabe (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duchenne smile

I don't understand. Rectify what situation? Hyacinth (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you have pointed to no specific problem my advice is to look up Duchenne smile where one would normally look up such subjects as parts of the body and emotions. Even if I had provided references in the article you would have to verify the information for yourself. How do you know I didn't make what stuff up?

When requesting references it is useful to specify which information you feel needs to be cited. One may argue that this is your responsibility. You may do this directly in the article through placing the {{fact}} template after the information in question. If you really feel the entire article is questionable you may tag it with {{unreferenced}} at the top of the article, as well as contacting the person who created the article.

However, you failed to notice in the article history that I did not create the article content. What I created was a redirect to Smile, which I have not edited. Hyacinth (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, you think articles should be referenced. You seem unable to choose between whether its your opinion or my obligation. My opinion is that people should be polite and informed. Have you noticed if I have created any articles with references? (or you could dig into the history of Wikipedia:Citing sources, I'd suggest looking at the talk page history showing 500 edits at a time) On the other hand, I think that in 1/2 the time that you have spent discussing this issue with me you could have verified for yourself that the term "Duchenne smile" or "play smile" is used in two different resources outside of Wikipedia. For example:

Ekman, P., Davidson, R.J., & Friesen, W.V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain psysiology II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 342-353. Cited in: Russell and Fernandez-Dols, eds. (1997).
Russell and Fernandez-Dols, eds. (1997). The Psychology of Facial Expression. Cambridge. ISBN 0521587964.

As I attempted to point out earlier: you still don't know I didn't just make it all up and would have to verify any information you questioned for yourself anyway. One could argue that is one's intellectual responsibility. Perhaps it is one's actual responsibility as a subsequent editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Why don't you tell me? Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just get the wrong person, you got the wrong attitude. I would probably be less upset if you where able to prove this "responsibility" you assert. Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Not for ALL material. Hyacinth (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hope

I don't want to get in a debate with you but I just need to say I hope that you will open your eyes one day and see that God is real. Then you can be forgiven of your sins and will be accepted into the holy land. That sounded so corny. But I must tell because I care about everyone including you even though I don't know you but I must tell you that God is real. You can believe me or not. I'm not going to try and change your mind. You said you're a Strong Atheists so I probably couldn't even if I tried. I just wanted you to know that because I don't want another one (you) to burn.--WillC (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay I don't know how to e-mail you from here. I usually just edit wrestling pages so I don't really need to know how. What is your e-mail address? Mine is on my users page.--WillC (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

I will try to add some article summaries during the next few days. If you have some spare time, please feel free to have a go yourself. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not really my area. Thanks for the offer though. Richard001 (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia - The Missing Manual

As you know, WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a personal interest in a topic from editing that topic. So I haven't added anything to the article, and don't plan to, nor to take a position on notability. As for reviews, you'll find a bunch at www.gopedia.org; which (if any) any rise to the level of WP:RS I'll leave up to you and others to decide. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Rain in Kerala

Some while ago you wrote on the talk page that you came away "not really having any conclusive idea what the rain was". The page is now under review as a Featured Article.

A friend had introduced me to the red rain in late 2005 - he's a 'committed' believer in panspermia. After reading Louis & Kumar's 3 papers, the CESS paper and a whole load of articles I came to the conclusion that the cause was incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone.

A paragraph that I'd added to the Wikipedia's Red Rain 'Conventional Theories' section was removed, as 'original research', though it remains in the schools version, http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/r/Red_rain_in_Kerala.htm, even after I'd added a reference to Jack Szostak's work on lipids and montmorillonite clay (which plausibly explains Louis & Kumar's observation of 'reproduction'). I thought I'd trodden the line quite carefully.

"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."

I hope that there isn't an effort underway either to re-launch, yet again, the 'spores from space' story or to keep the lid on the pollution problem by asserting the CESS research, and hope that you might take a look at the article again.

You can reference me through letters I wrote, http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2520 and http://www.downtoearth.org.in/new_letter.asp?currentpage=3&foldername=20061031

The paper I started to write stalled, or rather I stalled. But please let me know if you would further details. I would be interested in your comments. Sadly, incomplete incineration still rings true and the other hypotheses haven't got any better. Davy p (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Archiveme}}

Your request has been performed. Please not that the Category created my be deleted within four days unless populated. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stotting

I do understand the handicap principle. And if stotting is an example of an antipredator adaptation, then it makes no sense to assert earlier in the paragraph that it "increases the risk of being caught and killed by the predator" when just a few sentences later, in the cited example, stotting is shown to reduce the risk to gazelles of being caught and killed by a cheetah. So stotting would seem, intuitively, to increase the risk, but if it's an antipredator adaptation as the article suggests, then it decreases the risk. My edit is completely consistent with the succeeding sentence, which calls stotting an "apparently maladaptive behavior". --Lazar Taxon (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but does increase the risk of being caught in a way (it increases the risk of being caught, but the predator treats it as a signal of unprofitability, so overall it decreases the risk). The new wording I have used should remove any possible ambiguity. Richard001 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this wording is good. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hey Richard,

You've got quite an impressive personal page. I share similar beliefs and try to add as much as i can contribute towards betterment of Wikipedia. BTW i created this article on Tux Typing which is quite useful for kids and is open source in nature, just like Tux Paint.

I reckon it deserves to have its page. And i've tried enough to add as much information. If i can i'll do improve it as and when i see something. Hope you understand. Kudos to your work, Cheers! User:Randhirreddy 06:11, 29 May 2008

[edit] {{Merging}}

I have made the change you requested and added some additional documentation. Please let us know if there's anything else I can do. Adam McCormick (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit history vandalism

I have revived an erlier discussion you participated in at WT:VAN. Please reply there if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Vandalism

I guess it's a valid concern, but it's not worth my time to fix it. If queries have been ignored until now, there's no reason to expect someone to answer them. Yechiel (Shalom) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that page really needs a maintainer... Richard001 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)