User talk:Richard Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Richard Taylor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- ke4roh 16:44, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Many thanks for jumping in and editing the captions! I hope you don't mind I did London Underground's captions again - let me know what you think of them. I'm trying to stick to the pointers at Wikipedia:Captions.

Richard Taylor : I've seen what you've edited there, it's an improvement, but I'd have left the external link in.

I thought about it. Most external links are in the "External links" section of the article, so I'm reticent to use them elsewhere (though I will when it makes good sense). I did make sure that link was on the image description page for those who are particularly interested. Mind you, that's not gospel — it's just my opinion ;-) -- ke4roh 18:49, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks also for tackling the captions on action potential, though between reading the first couple of paragraphs and the image caption, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the image to the article (my background is computer science, so it doesn't really help). I copied your caption over to the image description page, since it is a good description of the image in general. Would you be so kind as to take another look at that caption with an eye towards connecting the picture with the article? Thanks!

Richard Taylor : I've edited that caption as requested.

Thanks! Now I understand much better. I may try shortening it, though I'll give it plenty of time to soak in first. -- ke4roh 18:49, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions? All you need to do is sign your name in the participants list. Three tildes (~~~) will do the trick. -- ke4roh 16:44, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting tricks

~~~~ will sign your name and date it. A colon at the beginning of a line (:) will indent that paragraph (as is often the custom for replies on talk pages. -- ke4roh 18:49, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Uprising

Many thanks for editing the captions. However, I have to revert most of your additions since there are simply too many mistakes and the captions seem too long. Sorry for that. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:10, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Replied to at Talk:Warsaw_Uprising, noting some of my captions did introduce ambiguity, and providing an alternative solution to the problem of some very short captions eg. "...2004", on that page by introducing a table (though I would have prefered the full captions for each image). Richard Taylor 17:05, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:FA current month Calendar

Neat! Nice work. --mav 20:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Typewriter captions

I redid the first caption, which seemed to me to be doing too much of stating what's clearly visible in the picture. I went a little ways out on a limb and from my exaimnation of the picture and the article text I concluded that the typewriter depicted could not have shown the operator characters as they were typed. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the appearance of the image's date attribution and wonder if the c. 1910 shouldn't be inside parenthesis or something. If you care to, please take another look and improve it as you see fit. If you're happy, you may want to strikeout typewriter on Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions lest somebody like me ruin your nice captions.--Kop 22:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Headers, capitals, and grammatical numbers

Hello. In Viluppuram, sterile insect technique, and Susan Hockfield, you used too many capital letters in section headings. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The first word in a section heading is to be capitalized; the later one are not unless they would otherwise be capitalized (i.e., same conventions as with article titles). I changed your link to [[insects]] to [[insect]]s, thereby bypassing a redirect page. Sometimes the redirect to the singular won't be there. Michael Hardy 16:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where have you gone

Richard, where have you gone? You're missed. →Raul654 09:58, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Improper conduct?

Am I reading [1] correctly that you added a badly-hidden Amazon referrer link to the Global Positioning System article as part of an edit? --Carnildo 00:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in the answer to this question too. I can't find any response, so could you please respond here? -- Jeronim 03:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Superscorpio.gif

.

Obsoleted by Image:Super_Scorpio.jpg. Bobbis 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC) As this was only on one page it doesn't matter - but replacing one image by one that's "the same but better" can be done (is preferably done??) by replacing it (clicking upload new version of this file) on the image page Richard Taylor 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

Thanks for doing some reversion at Harry Potter [2], but if you look carefully, you'll note that you only reverted one of several vandalous edits to the page, which stayed in for longer than they needed to. Be sure you revert back to the correct version! Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS dissidents

Are you honestly comparing AIDS dissidents to moon landing hoaxers??? 198.59.188.232 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm pointing to the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article as an example of how Wikipedia can deal effectively, in a NPOV fashion, with unconventional theories where currently the vast body of evidence supports the conventional point of view. Richard Taylor 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Are you honestly saying the "vast body of evidence supports the conventional point of view" on HIV??? 198.59.188.232 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am yes, and that's essientially encapsulated in the title "AIDS dissidents". However that doesn't mean I believe the conventional wisdom is entirely correct - it most probably isn't, or at least isn't complete. Phlogiston was a conventional theroy supported by all the available evidence at one point. In terms of creating an excellent encyclopedia, the key thing is to ensure the article is NPOV, to promote that process I added the scipeerreview tag. As I've written elsewhere I think the AIDS and related articles have the potential to be a very valuable educational resource, and in this field education can save lives, and make people's lives better, so its very worthwhile getting the articles to the highest possible standard. Any personal opinions held by editors should be irrelevant, they shouldn't stop the community as a whole producing valuable balanced articles. Richard Taylor 16:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Isn't entirely correct..." That's an understatement. Have you read this this paper? I'm sure with your biological background, you can understand its implications. 198.59.188.232 23:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

CUT AND PASTED FROM Talk:HIV test (Removed cut and pasted content) Richard Taylor 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read those papers? 198.59.188.232 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not an academic matter. It's honest scientists like yourself who seem unwilling to look into the real literature who keep this scam going. 198.59.188.232 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Template update

Fair enough. An entirely new template might be more appropriate.--Esprit15d 17:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:STS-121 debris clear.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:STS-121 debris clear.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. — MECU≈talk 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Susan_hockfield.jpg

[edit] Notability of Tony McElroy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tony McElroy, by Hu (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tony McElroy 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 Tony McElroy, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Tony McElroy itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Olga sosnovska.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Olga sosnovska.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)