User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2010/December

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Ball

I was letting you know I had put this article up. Your bot appears to be the last legitimate editor to the article as the original poster and editor have not been active since 2006.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot NG Review Interface

		The Multiple Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to the ClueBot NG Review Interface. Here are some statistics, if you are curious. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please do not change citation style without consensus; see WP:CITE. That article does not use citation templates and that style is not used on medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you would not contact me about it first before reverting. Reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Citing_medical_sources maybe it would just be a case of using {{vcite journal}} over {{cite journal}}? Is the article using Vancouver style then? (you might have said, there are existing inconsistencies). I have started Talk:Intrusive_thoughts#Citation_style_in_use_in_this_article_.E2.80.93_clarification_needed to understand the problem in detail. Rjwilmsi 08:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article had three {{cite journal}} uses before my edits, so that's something to clarify. Rjwilmsi 14:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Prof David Nutt Article references messed up

Hello there,

Did you order user:Citation bot to make this edit? I assume so since it has your username in the edit summary. --Drogonov 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

IP editor vandalised a template redirect. Template redirects were mass unprotected a couple of months ago. Rjwilmsi 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Should I undo my edit then? --Drogonov 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob van Gijzel

I noticed that in your text on Rob van Gijzel someone had replaced the word politician with the word looser (yes, with double o). Instead of just letting you know, I thought I'd fix it myself. And yes, I'm a newbie.. Tamtation (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was an act of vandalism by the IP editor after me. Thank you for cleaning it up. Rjwilmsi 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Intrusive thoughts

Hello, Rjwilmsi. You have new messages at Talk:Intrusive thoughts#Citation style in use in this article – clarification needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CiteCompletion glitches

This edit to Hawaiian Airlines incorrectly handled the publication title, Pacific Business News. Rather than using the work or newspaper parameter, it was split into the first and last parameters. I only checked a couple of others, but it looks like other similar edits have the same problem. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Four edits had that problem, now fixed, and logic fixed for the future. Thanks for letting me know. Rjwilmsi 02:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You betcha.

I can't do it right away since I'm at work earlier than usual today, but I will as soon as I possibly can. The vandalism was actually doing her potential professional harm, so that's why I locked it. Thanks for asking. It'll be a pleasure to fix it properly. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal cites

I would like to be able to add to, or fix, citations with AWB. I notice that you are able to use the AWB for this. For example some entries in the edit history say, "Journal cites:, completed 10 page ranges, using AWB (7463)". How do I set up the AWB to accomplish this? ____ Steve Quinn (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's my own custom module, not ready for general release. Though if you have a list of pages you would like me to process let me know. Rjwilmsi 08:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the offer. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting an inadvertent error on my part. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of United States Football Alliance for deletion

The article United States Football Alliance is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Football Alliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

1. LOL
2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
3. I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John McTernan

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

not Notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NBeale (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about page range completion

Rjwilmsi -- You made several changes to the Solar radiation management page using AWB. I mistakenly thought that your bot had made the changes, so I went through them and reverted one that appeared to be an error: [1]. But now I have realized that you are not a bot -- my apologies!

So I wanted to ask you about this change. You changed "page 146" to "pages 146-50". Was this because the cited article runs from page 146 to page 150 in that issue of Current Biology? Or was this because the discussion of the one-degree celsius change occupies pages 146 to 150? Your edit explanation says "Journal cites:, completed 1 page ranges,", which sounds as if you are fixing all one-page citations. But if in fact the person who put the citation in Wikipedia was deliberately citing the one page that contained the relevant information, we should not be replacing those citations with the entire page range of the entire article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The range completion is based on the entire paper from the PubMed index of it. For cites to papers in journals the convention is to cite the start page of the paper, or page range it covers (slightly more information) rather than a page where a specific item is found – see the Template:Cite_journal documentation. This is the way that journal papers are identified and indexed. Your point about citing the exact page or pages is how books and newspapers are cited, not journals. If a user has cited a page within the paper as |page= then I will not be updating it with AWB, though they haven't got the journal cite quite right. Rjwilmsi 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. This is very different than the way that citations are done in scholarly published works. In such works, the full page range is used in the bibliography, and the specific page is cited in the footnote. I didn't realize that Wikipedia used a different system. I see now that when citing specific pages, we should use Template:Cite_journal (with the full page range) followed by Template:Rp (to cite the specific page numbers). I guess the reason for this is that it avoids multiple footnotes that are identical except for the pages cited? Thanks for the tip; I will use these templates from now on! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! Leuckartiara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC).