Jump to content

User talk:Rtcpenguin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorting of "Famous Alumni" on JMU article

[edit]

I am hoping you'll join in the discussion on sorting the "Famous Alumni" list in the James Madison University article. See Talk:James Madison University for the discussion thread. The basic idea is whether to sort by name or graduation year. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[edit]

Thank you for agreeing with me that the opinion article from The Breeze cited in the JMU article is nonsense. I don't understand why I even try to get into a conversation with some of these people, but that's besides the point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply... I have to say, the scary thing is that these people do appear to be JMU students, and it seems to check out, too. Strothra has contributed to an article about a JMU professor, and also filled in some information about the Valley Mall that I'd missed. Meanwhile, Warnerhw checks out based on JMU's people search - a person by the name of H. William Warner is listed as a current student, with the userid "warnerhw". Lately, though, I've also been disappointed with some other JMU-related work on here, as I discovered the Dr. Linwood H. Rose and Integrated Science and Technology articles were blatant copyright violations from various JMU publications. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

A request for mediation has been made on the article James Madison University, which you have a record as an editor on. I have taken on the mediation for this dispute. Please make any comments on [This page.]

Please try to remain civil during this process, and I hope we will be able to have a resolution as soon as possible. Any participants are asked to comment within seven days (i.e. before Monday 6th March, 2006).

Thank You. Cameronian 16:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clownfish articles

[edit]

Hello, Rtcpenguin! I've noticed you've created the Ocellaris Clownfish article. There is a requested portal on marine life. Would you like to help out? User:Dark jedi requiem is making the portal. Thanks. --Sidious1701 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry A. Callis

[edit]

I see that you reverted my updates on the Henry A. Callis artilce for the template {{cite book}} which includes a parameter for the chapter in which the references were taken from. Can you explain why? thanks Ccson 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your edits on the Imtan article. Actually, English is not my mother tongue. I really appreciate what you're doing and thank you again! Orionist 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion and Editing of Articles by 75.5.238.53 (talk)

[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry for doing something wrong, I'm from Uzbekistan so I was adding information, but I guess changed something else, sorry.

But now I learned to improve articles correctly, but I see that you are still erasing everything I write even discussion page, is there anything I did to offend you, why are you doing it, I'm sorry that my english is not perfect, but since I'm from Uzbekistan I can help with articles about Uzbekistan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.238.53 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Common knowledge"

[edit]

I reverted your removal of the fact tag on the JMU article which you took out saying "this is common knowledge to any student or faculty member." Unfortunately, there are another 6 billion of us out there that aren't a student or faculty member at JMU. Sorry, I don't mean any offensive by adding the tag back. Happy holidays, Metros232 05:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are generally used to provide an authoritative source for substantiation on questionable information. In regards to the article on James Madison University, the information isn't questionable. A good example for a statement requiring a citation would be one that opposes common knowledge or isn't intuitive, for example, claiming an unusually high percentage of faculty are Nobel prize winners would constitute such a statement. Theoretically, every fact in an article could have a citation, but in practice this greatly hinders the readability of articles and the usefulness of encyclopedias. In the future, please use more discretion in reverting legitimate edits. Also, welcome to Wikipedia! I've placed some useful links on your talk page, namely the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Thanks I look forward to useful contributions from you in the future! Rtcpenguin 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I'm a tad bit insulted by the way you're talking down to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia? I've been here for over a year (since December 19, 2005) AND I'm an admin. Metros232 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really give a damn who you are. Please focus on improving articles rather than making self-aggrandizing statements that have little to do with the issue at hand. Jim Wales has stated many times that one of the main goals of the encyclopedia was to create a community without hierarchy, and as someone who claims they've been using the site for a long period of time, I would have expected you to realize this. Rtcpenguin 00:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whaaaat? What does any of this have to do with anything in the world? Why are you copping an attitude with me just because I restored a citation tag? A citation tag which was actually addressed a short time later by someone else. Obviously a citation could have been added as requested. So, why are you now attacking me for that? My comment about being an admin was nothing to do with hierarchy and all to do with the fact that being an admin means you understand policy fairly well. It'd be odd for san admin to need the "Welcome" message that you sent as the admin is well aware of all of what's described in the welcome message. Metros232 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to say you understand the policy, just say so. Being an admin doesn't necessarily mean you understand the minutia of the style guide or how to properly use citations, which evidently isn't so judging by the edit. Please refrain from further posting on my talk page as this issue has been resolved for the moment, or at least until that section is rewritten and the content refined or removed (as it isn't very significant and certainly doesn't merit a citation). Thanks, Rtcpenguin 01:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

[edit]

Hello, pertaining to your edit on Target Corporation, I don't mean to start an edit war with you. The {{reflist}} template already adds the div statement that makes the font smaller. I don't see any reason to add a second one, for it will only make the font even smaller than "references-small". If there's something I'm not seeing, please notify me. Regards, Tuxide 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying both versions look the same to you? What browser are you using? Rtcpenguin 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Mozilla Firefox on a dual monitor setup (2624x1200). They do not look the same to me, {{reflist}} is slightly bigger than <div class="references-small">{{reflist}}</div>, but both are smaller than the normal font size. What I am saying is that {{reflist}} already transcludes a <div class="references-small"> so I don't understand why add a second one because doing so makes it even smaller. Regards, Tuxide 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example, I am certain the one in the middle is preferred.[1][2][3]

just plain <references/>
  1. ^ testing testing testing testing testing testing
  2. ^ testing2 testing2 testing2 testing2 testing2 testing2
  3. ^ testing3 testing3 testing3 testing3 testing3 testing3
{{reflist}}
<div class="references-small">{{reflist}}</div>
Gotcha, but I still prefer the smallest version, especially in an article with 60+ citations and that is considerably long already. I'm not going to revert but I guess I'll start a discussion on the template talk page to find out what the community consensus is. Rtcpenguin 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized how Internet Explorer rendered it. Holy cow. Well, Microsoft was never big on CSS anyways. That can probably be fixed by modifying the monobook.css. Tuxide 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is what I am seeing if it helps with your discussion. Regards, Tuxide 02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LinwoodRose.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LinwoodRose.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECUtalk 00:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braveheart Edits

[edit]

Thanks for your help. I wanted you to know that i reinstated a trimmed Cast section, as a temporary measure. Some actors are more pivotal than others, and deserve mention - specifically Cox who quite literally went from one set to another, being simultaneously involved in the filing of Rob Roy.
It wasn't meant as a slap, but more of a tapping on the shoulder. :) Cheers! -Arcayne 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a cast section identical in format to Casablanca. It's quite nicely done. Arcayne 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have included the younger William and the Elder Bruce, as well as Hamish's papa - all were noteworthy characters. there were others, but those in particular helped move the plot along appreciably. I distantly remember a story where the kid stayed with Gobson's own family to learn to copy him. And the kid did have some of Gobson's mannerisms down cold. I remember being impressed with that, and the kid's general craft. Arcayne 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a peer review. Based on all the awesome edits (yours included), I think we are at the very least ready for an A rating, if not GA status. Arcayne 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

[edit]

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

notability

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. F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment about Problem

[edit]

Hi Rtcpenguin, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! -TabooTikiGod 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bank of America

[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. The edits I made simply reverted two previous uncited edits.

Image:Marden House.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Marden House.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. Damiens.rf 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DCEETA

[edit]

Hi Rtcpenguin. I saw your name at Pope-Leighey House. Can you get any photos (signs, buildings, etc.) for User:Dogue/DCEETA (draft)? Thanks. -- Suntag 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Rtcpenguin! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 13 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Joseph Curiale - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sepang International Circuit

[edit]

Just so you know, qualifying and practice laps do not count towards lap records. Only race laps. --Falcadore (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as 2010 virginia tech massacre, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2010 virginia tech massacre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. 5 albert square (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 2010 virginia tech massacre, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Train2104 (talkcontribscount) 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User talk:5 albert square. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. L Kensington (talkcontribs) 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with this edit to 2010 virginia tech massacre. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. L Kensington (talkcontribs) 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with 2010 virginia tech massacre, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 5 albert square (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When you've sobered up or can offer an explanation for your recent actions, please request an unblock. Kuru (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rtcpenguin (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Looks like I left my account logged in on my laptop and someone else used it to vandalize some articles

Decline reason:

Bad news, I'm afraid. Since we do not know who is control of this account, it must remain blocked. TNXMan 14:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.