User talk:Rklawton

Archives Index

Help

I was trying to get someone to fix the hello article. thank you for the welcome

Parachuting

User:Rklawton/Sandbox looks like a pretty dang good outline to me. I would like to see which articles you are planning on writing though, I can't really tell from the list, maybe bold them? Some of the topics look like they might be hard to extend beyond a paragraph or two. You might end up with a bunch of merge tags if you write some of the smaller ones. World records might be better as list of world records (maybe it could be a featured list too). I'm excited for history of military parachuting (Band of Borthers is one of my favorite series :) ). Don't forget to dig up some good reference material before you start. Oh and figuring out how to categorieze this stuff would probably be good too (remember to try to have more than 3-4 articles in a category) -Ravedave 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold- good idea.

Merge- I figure if I start with high level articles with and use sections we'll find it easier (less hassle) to split the sections off into their own articles later if needed rather than the other way 'round. Some of the articles already have a lot of military history added in, so I'm not sure how much work they'll need. On the other hand, articles exist all over the place regarding people, battles, and military units that all relate back to military parachuting, and I'll see what I can do to make sure these links and categories appear when appropriate.

Categories- good point. I think we can turn level I and level II into categories, but I doubt they'll need to run any deeper.

Question- how do I cite an external reference? I looked for examples, but didn't find any or managed not to to "see" them somehow. Does wikipedia subscribe to a specific style guide (MLA, etc.)? Rklawton 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Featured_articles for example and Wikipedia:Cite -Ravedave 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some comments at Talk:Parachuting. I agree with Ravedave that most of the smallest articles should be merged though(no need for a separate article for low and high speed mals for example.) Skydiver 09:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your new proposed articles. They look good, but I would concentrate more on the physical and technical side of things. Regulations are different in every country, and if information on all the countries' regulations is included, the actual issue gets buried under. Maybe separate articles regarding parachuting regulations in different countries? Skydiver 14:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Perhaps a separate article on each national club or governing authority would be in order. For example, an article on the USPA could also introduce skydiving regulations (BSRs v. FAA regulations). Rklawton 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other leading edgers

Great points about the military being another leading edge technology adapter. Hadn't thought about it, probably because I was an 11 Bravo and the extent of my brush with technology was my good old M-203. I didn't realize that RFID inventory management was a DOD initiative. I'll start digging around and see what other good stuff came out of there. Thanks for the lead. Coolmojito 18:32, 27 February 2006 (PST)

Up until last summer, I taught MIS and related courses at Western Illinois University, so give me a heads up what technology areas interest you. The great thing about professin' is all the reading time I got - contributed to a couple of textbooks, too. Rklawton 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive background. I'd love to take you up on your offer. Right now, am involved with four consulting projects so will wait on asking you until I have time to surface. Coolmojito 23:15, 9 March 2006 (PST)

October 28

Hi, I wrote that Little Orphan Annie was born on October 28 (true) and you sent me a warning message. Why is this considered vandalism?

March 7

Actually, I did not see that his death was already on the page...unless you added it. I will write a biography. Short. So someone can come along and add to it. -diediemydarling

User:207.63.143.71

I blocked the IP for 24 hours. I'll put the IP on my watchlist for a week or so, and perhaps extend the block. Right now, I'm just trying to clear up the backlog on that page.

By the way, nice meeting you! I don't think we have met before on Wikipedia. If you ever need anything, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. See you around! --HappyCamper 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a really interesting person! I am in the process of writing some papers for my research. I don't have time to set aside for a textbook yet, but I would love to do that someday. Some of the topics I'm interested in are on my user page. My current goal is to create a series of useful templates to help guide readers around topics related to communications theory. If I'm lucky, I might do the same for polymers as well (but this is a little bit of wishful thinking on my part...maybe by the summer I'll get a chance to do this.)

I tend to stay away from the limelight as well, but if I spot a backlog where I can help out, I'll usually jump in. Administrative activites on Wikipedia can be quite draining (and even stressful), so I tend to do only as much as I can handle - I guess you can say, I like to sit back and enjoy my coffee while reading/monitoring Wikipedia. I used to be much more active in articles for sure!

By the way, I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is the reference desk which you might find interesting to browse through or participate in. I think it is the only place that has simultaneously minimal vandalism, "wikipolitics" (or whatnot), which is why it's a fun and relaxing place to be. Thanks again for your note :-) --HappyCamper 21:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie's Guide ???

Hello. I have been thinking about this for some time now, mainly since I started RC patrolling some time ago . . . there are a lot of policies that Wikipedia enforces that most new people here have no clue about. I looked through the welcome messages that I put on new users' pages but they don't seem to address these problems. they tell you to "be bold" and tell you how to edit and make redirects and stuff . . . all necessary as they are simple . . . but none seem to tell you what you can't or aren't supposed to do.

I think it stinks when a new user comes here and goes to the trouble of writing an article only to have it deleted or under attack for rules that he/she never knew existed. Do you think there could be a way of creating a template that in a friendly way can welcome someone while also emphasizing what they are not allowed to do? In particular, I can think of several "no no's" that are repeatedly vilated by people unaware that they did anything wrong. Among the things that I was thinking of adding was stuff like this:

The material in these pages seems to me to be the most relevant as to what *not* to add and what newbies screw up on most (this semi-newbie not excepted) and the code of conduct expected out of people. I can't think of a way to force people to read this, but having a new article written with a good intention coming under fire at once will seem a lot more odious to me than showing rules in a welcome message.

Also, there is some content unsuitable for Wikipedia, but that *may* be suitable for other Wiki-sources, sich as Wiktionary, or Wikibooks, that the user may be able to make use of.

What do you think about this? Although there are some ill-intentioned people, there has really got to be a fun, non-abrasive way of getting this across. I would like to avoid situations in the future like the one with User:Softcraft if it can be avoided.

Copyrights on photos is something that still confuses me and I have been here six months.

Am I just trying too hard to be too nice or is this an idea worth pursuing?

(A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was waiting to see how this went over before talking about semi-newbies like yours truly . . . but I think that if there was a way for people like me to try to help out well-meaning newbies then it would leave the real experts like you free to do more constructive work. Now I don't know everything Wiki -- far from it -- but I know a ton more than I did two months ago! That "medium area" I think might be more helpful in training new people in the basics than the epxerts might be since we recently went through the same things. Let me know your ideas on this. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL user verses date pages

Semi-protection is a possibility. One problem is, which pages need to be protected? The alert mentioned the 13 colonies, so that would be 13 date pages to protect. But are the colony dates the only ones he's hitting? Or has he been doing the aniversaries of other events? If the latter, then the window of date pages expands greatly. Do we need to S-protect all 365 date pages? Obviously that's a bit much, but it's hard to know exactly which ones need to be protected. And then there's the general problems with S-protect. We block off all valid edits from anons for the length of the protection. I'm hesitant to do that to 13 pages, let alone the full number that would need to be protected to fully stop him. - TexasAndroid 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching almost all the date pages, and I've only seen him do this to states with bicentinnial anniversaries. I've provided a list of the affected date pages below. I understand your hesitation. If he starts up again, what reporting method should I use? Should I go back to the vandalism page and list the date pages, or is there a better route? Rklawton 22:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


January 2 January 9 February 6 March 1 March 4 May 29 June 1	June 21 June 25 July 26 November 21 December 7 December 12 December 18

Ok. Now that you know that blocking him would be useless, you're ready for page protection the next time he strikes. Semi-protection, to be specific. You will want Wikipedia:Requests for page protection when that happens. That's the proper place to request the protection. Explain the situation out fully, and provide the above list of his targets, and you should be good to go. I have no idea if the protection will be granted, because my hestitations at S-protecting 13 pages still stand, but the admins there are much more experienced at being admins than I am (i've only been an admin for a month or so), and will know what to do. Anyway, that's your next step if/when he returns. - TexasAndroid 14:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about learning: you, me, everyone. Thanks, I'll following your directions if/when it happens again. A lot of time these guys just get tired and go away. Rklawton 16:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

Hi ! Thanks to your copyedits and User:Robth, Sassanid Empire is doing good in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sassanid Empire. If you have time could you please check Fall of Sassanids for copy editing stuffs. Best wishes ! Amir85 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My work is trivial compared to yours, so congratulations to you! I will be happy to help with Fall of Sassanids right away. Rklawton 07:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Thanks for your support and your diligent copy editing. Har Roozetan Norouz, Norouzetan Pirooz هر روزتا ن نوروز , نوروزتان پيروز ! Amir85 13:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year to you, too! I enjoy reading your work. Please call on me again any time to help. Rklawton 18:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Do you use a bot for edits such as this? It seems so tedious to make so many minor whitespace changes, it seems as if you must either be using a bot or some sort of script that allows regexes in the edit box. Thanks! --M @th wiz 20 20 00:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very patient person. I am also a programmer. The monster bot is still under development (you know, the fool-proof bot that never misses an edit or screws up an article)... Rklawton 01:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try using the AWB. I could probably write some regex (acutally, I would need a few) that could automate most of the tasks for you. --M @th wiz 20 20 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the actual changes, I couldn't help but notice that you seem to have no space before linked years and a space before unlinked years. However, the first line (events in the year 514) has a link with a space you added. --M @th wiz 20 20 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea is to get the dashes to line up in the same column as an aid to faster visual scanning. Rklawton 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

Hello! Thanks for the comment. Replied here. -ColdCaffeine 08:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi, I wonder why I don't manage to use your photo : /media/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/A03_2750_640x427.JPG/120px-A03_2750_640x427.JPG For this page : http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelus If you can help, thanks Astirmays 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not possible to share photos between languages. First copy (or move) the photo to the Commons. Once in the Commons, all wiki media can use it. Rklawton 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload your own photos, are you supposed to identify yourself as the copyright owner, so they won't get pulled down by the copyright bot?M dorothy

I always add (self) to the end of my summary information, and I've never had a problem with the copyright bot. Other than that, I really don't know. Rklawton 05:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Merging the articles...

I completely agree, puppy fat should be merged with childhood obesity. However, im not sure how to go about doing that while keeping the section in proper english. Is it possible you could do it for me? Thanks, Wikipeedio 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can tell me what you mean by "proper English," I'll give it a whirl. Rklawton 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I could merge the two articles, while still having the childhood obesity article make sense and be in proper grammer. Wikipeedio 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two and redirected the Puppy fat article. Since there was overlap between the two, I heavily edited the puppy fat contents. I like it though. It's short and to the point. Take a look and let me know what you think. Rklawton 16:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. Thanks for doing that. Wikipeedio 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Hanson Field for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's really cool! I had no clue (a common state). I'll see what I can do about implementing your suggestion. Rklawton 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

I tried to help make this page more consistent, why did you have a go at me for linking the years up? (Benjy613 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Date article policy is to not create redundant year links. Simply link the year once. This keeps it consistant with the other 366 date articles. Also note the article's in-line notes to the same effect. Thanks. Rklawton 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin - the parens are still broken (missing a closing paren). Please address. Rklawton 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – I think – thanks for spotting. Regards, David Kernow 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You rock! Rklawton 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Acumen76 and 4 March

Acumen76 has changed a date on a opera article I Capuleti e i Montecchi. At first I thought it was bona fide, but then I saw his user page (on which your name is prominent). Was it vandalism? - Kleinzach 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acumen76 has a history of changing dates without supporting citations. This makes it rather laborious to sort out fact from fiction. I have, however, found a source that supports the March 11 date [1] I'll add it to the article. Rklawton 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The date he changed was from 11 March 1830 to 4 March 1830. Curiously your previous correspondence also mentioned 4 March. Is there anything we can do to stop him if this is just a subtle form of vandalism? - Kleinzach 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked the 4 March page and (as I expected) it has been edited a lot by Acumen76. What do you think we might do about this? - Kleinzach 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiki-sanctioned course of action would be to review his contributions and, if demonstrable, indict him either for habitually sloppy work or for vandalism. Why he focuses on March 4th is anyone's guess. Rklawton 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged images

Hey, you forgot to tag Image:A03 2624 640x427.JPG and Image:A03 2767 640x427.JPG. They're tagged as {{GFDLpresumed}} for now, but can you please license them? Thanks, Rory096 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete these two. One isn't very good and isn't linked to anything. The other I moved to Commons and updated all links. Thanks. Rklawton 03:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Image:A03 2897 640x427.JPG - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'll move it to Commons this arvo and let you know when it's OK to delete. I'll use a higher resolution version when I do. Rklawton 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved A03 2897 640x427.JPG to commons and updated all links. You can now delete the Wikipedia version (or tell me how to do it). Rklawton 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved two of these images to Commons. The first image wasn't worth moving. I've tagged them all for deletion. Thank you for bringing these to my attention. Rklawton 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you assistance

I don't think the Rjenson person is going to let up. Do you? I trying to keep negative bias from that article and others that I happen to run across. --Bookofsecrets 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2005

Hello Rklawton, Israel occupied Lebanese territory since March 1978 which makes it 22 years of occupation. Cheers--A rihani 07:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Bias

See Talk:Tennessee for additional NPOV issues of the same bias. --Bookofsecrets 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rjensen at it again

I don't know what's with this guy, but I want to thank you for standing up to his ham-handed tactics. He's making himself a real PITA on the FDR article by vetoing any NPOV changes and dictatorially removing the POV tag without comment, after less than 24 hours. Anyway, thanks for being among those willing to resist him. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment.

Thanks you for your advice. I was just stressful about it. If She had sent me message, I would have discussed with her to solve the problem of editing the article. So, I apologized her for my behaviour to give her warning. Daniel5127, 05:21, 4 May 2006(UTC)

It takes character to recognize and apologize for a mistake. You will do well here. Rklawton 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated

An guy using an IP address came in and added a bunch of stuff to the Puppy Fat section of the Childhood obesity article. I read all the additions over, and I'm not sure whether they should be kept or whether I should do something with them. I just wanted to know your opinion before I went and made changes. Tell me what you think about it, but in my opinion, I think the additions are a little biased. Cheers! Wikipeedio 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think we could move the whole puppy fat section to the talk page until we've got citations for the information provided. Rklawton 14:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Link Spammer

I think a proper course of action given this scenario is to start adding vandalism warnings to the user's talk page, as I have just begun doing. Your reverts are justified, to the best of my knowledge, since Wikipedia's vandalism policy prominently lists spam, as in adding commercial links, as a type of vandalism. The three revert rule does not apply to editors trying to fix this issue :). I'll keep an eye on this user as well. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Fabricationary 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

Please would you unblock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boromadloon

for reasons specified on the profile. I admit I was responsible for some, but I have changed that now, and now make much more constructive posts, such as my addition to the "Billingham Synthonia" pages.

Many Thanks

Thanks for help on Talk:Totalise, it was much appreciated!EvocativeIntrigue 15:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done a better job nominating it for deletion. You can tell by his question that he's clueless and just needed better information about the process. I'll do better next time. Rklawton 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea when nominating something for deletion to send a note to the originator explaining why you are nominating it and which guidelines (WP:CORP etc) the article doesn't meet. It's also preferable not to AfD/PROD something when it has only existed for 3 minutes unless it is blatent vandalism/attack page. It's better to tag the article and contact the originator first. That said... the article is a blatent copyvio and probably deserves AfD.--Isotope23 16:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all accounts - except that copy-vio's are grounds for SD, aren't they? Rklawton 16:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are... CSD:A8 is for blatent copyright infringement. At first look, I didn't realize Totalise was a cut & paste job; but this could have gone speedy with a note to the originator pointing them to the criteria this was speedied under.--Isotope23 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinulator

I deprodded this as well, and added some links. Sinulator gets 40,200 hits on Google, and there's an article on it in Wired News. Mango juice^talk 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's another one of the tags I made from the same batch. I should have used a different tag. My concern wasn't notability (as I recall) but that it was written more like an ad. Thanks for catching and fixing it. I think I used "prod" only a couple of times that day, and I'll read up on unfamiliar tags before I use one again. Thank you for your patience. Cheers. Rklawton 21:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcar288

I've removed your report of Boxcar288 (talk · contribs) from WP:AIV as he had only one edit, which was an image upload. To report 3RR violations, you should go to WP:AN/3RR and follow the procedure there. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry. As I only saw the one contribution from the user, I simply assumed that you had listed the wrong user. Anyway, getting a 3RR or vandalism block on him now would probably be rather difficult, though I do agree that his actions were highly inappropriate (though, as I'm not an admin, I have no way of looking at his deleted edits), and I will try to keep an eye on him. In the future, it will probably help to clarify these matters if you post appropriate warnings on the user's talk page, both because it serves to alert the user that his actions are wrong (often times newbs simply wonder where their edits went and never realize that someone else has been reverting their changes) and as it will let others know exactly what the problem with the user is. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of child

I am assuming that the parents of the child in the picture you provided for the polysomnograpy article (and others) agreed to have this image posted on the internet? Patients at the Pediatric Sleep Center in Saint Louis Children's hospital sign a disclosure that allows them to be videotaped for diagnostic and teaching purposes, but I am not sure this usage falls under either of those. If you are an employee of said hospital, I would make sure this is not a violation of the hospital's HIPPA policies, particularly since this involves a minor. (by MrSandman)

You raise excellent points. Rest easy. I am the parent and not the employee. Rklawton 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure. Thanks for the response. Cute kid, btw.

MrSandman 17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should have probably made that clear on the upload page. Rklawton 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry isnt strong enough for my previous words

- wow...i was really "losing it" there for awhile...im embarrased.
  - Yes...sorry isnt strong enough Rk, but just so you know the new medication seems to be working, and I am again living in the present, in this century

and on level ground, btw, I have maintained The Bachelder graveyard in spite of what some "hidden troll" under a pretend name, has said to the contrary, They never took me up on my offer to meet me at the gravesite on stevens hill rd in nottingham!, WELL...i'll be putting fresh flowers and now have the flag kept there in place at all times, tommorow for certain, the graveyard is only one that covers an area equel to less than a tennis court in size, but anyway... all the best for a happy fourth to you and yours!, Cathy (cathytreks 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No worries. I agree that a troll tried to trip you up. I commend your response to it. What did you think of the Library of Congress links to Bachelder's broadsheets? Rklawton 17:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria, IL

Thanks!George 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure How to start a discusion But I need Help

I uploaded a image That belongs to me a photo of my wedding on my user page but I got a message saying it was going to be deleated because it said it has no copyright info, But it belongs to me. and I am not sure how to add the stuff it wanted

Thanks User:Zeleniak

Just follow the instructions posted on your talk page. In this case, you simply failed to specify the type of copywrite. It's no big deal, really. However, you will want to read through a few to see which one suits your needs best. I prefer CC 2.5 so that my name stays with the image where ever it goes. Rklawton 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SD & WP:CORP

Hi - I didn't realize that failing WP:CORP was an acceptable criteria for speedy deletions. I know lack of notability for people, clubs or bands all have their own SD tag, but we can speedy NN companies or websites as well? --mtz206 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap is crap. Why should corporations be any different? Rklawton 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I guess I assumed something was different due to the lack of a {{db-corp}} tag or explicit description in WP:SD. --mtz206 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship and you?

Hey... any particular reason you're not an admin yet? If not, and if you'd be interested, I'd consider it an honor to formally nominate you.

Anyway, if you'd like me to, just say the word (and then allow me 24 hours' notice to brush up on everything so I don't botch up the nomination). Cheers! --Ashenai 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you to offer. I think we should wait until I can go a whole month without ticking someone off, first. Rklawton 08:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sure thing. Anyway, my offer stands, indefinitely. Unless you start vandalizing or something. :) --Ashenai 08:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Engleham

Well, it's possible he might have taken offense at the suggestion that he has a specific agenda; that's why I suggested everyone hold off on the personal attacks (trying to keep the flame level low, at least until someone more deserving of it shows up.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A specific agenda..." - is actually pretty neutral. It could be an agenda "for the betterment of all humankind" or the like. It isn't, of course. But that's not our fault - it's his own contributions that illustrate his purpose here, and I think it's important for those who debate with him to review these contributions for themselves. Rklawton 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, yeah, but -- you knew what you meant and he knew what you meant, and it was a dig as opposed to useful discussion. No big deal, even vague fighting words lead too often to fights. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth isn't a dig. In this case, it makes a very useful point in favor of those claiming he's POV pushing. He says he isn't, but his edits say he is. He's asking for credibility, but he hasn't built up any, and that's all valid to point out in a talk page debate. His resort to name calling should result in a warning or more. Rklawton 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made to the April 30th calendar to include the foundation of the Church of Satan in that year was removed; as you claim, because it is insignificant. I would not call this a NPOV by any means. The same calendar includes an entry for Ellen DeGeneres coming out of the closet on television; certainly I rate the foundation of a religion with membership in the thousands internationally more important than an item of celebrity gossip. It is of course futile to attempt to argue about it, since I will invariably be outnumbered on the issue, but it deserves to be pointed out that this does not serve justice to Wikipedia standards. - Lvthn13

You make a good point. Ellen DeGeneres was a first for American TV, may have made an impact on Gay Rights, and affected millions. Thus, there is no comparison. Even so, I have been considering deleting that particular entry since it doesn't seem to have had any lasting effect. DeGeneres came out, there was a big, short-lived fuss, and then everyone moved on. In the long run, we'll probably pick a few events that best signify milestones in the Gay Rights movement and delete the remainder. I suspect that the entry you question will come down on the "remainder" side. Rklawton 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to appear pompous on the subject, but I suspect I am far more educated on the history and impact of the Church of Satan. Its foundation inspired countless visual and musical artists, and its membership includes people from every imaginable walk of life. It is easy to assume that it is a minor event, yet it has made the news consistently for over forty years. More to the point, while it is no doubt an "obscure event" to some, it certainly causes no harm to include it on the list of significant events for that date. Doing so would, in my opinion, be quite in line with Wikipedia's standard of NPOV and true to the spirit of free information. A short session of research of Wikipedia would reveal that there are numerous articles concerning Satanism, the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey, his books, and other associated persons and issues of importance. I say that any date event which was significant enough to spawn over two dozen Wikipedia articles deserves mention on Wikipedia, even if it is unpopular. I am kind enough not ot take offense at the comment "made up church" as I consider all religions "made up" (somebody founded them, no?), all I ask in return is the same, that my intimate knowledge on this topic be respected. I am content to deal with those matters I feel I am informed on. If you still feel otherwise, I would not waste further effort as I know I cannot win a "war" of POV when it comes to editing, and I have not attempted to revert the edit since yours. Take under consideration that even if you disagree with my opinion, everyone has theirs, and perhaps mine ought to carry equal respectability. - Lvthn13

You are clearly moved by this particular subject and would like to see this event in a Date Article. However, you do not seem to have done any research into what types of events are selected to appear in date articles. Please visit the project page. Rklawton 12:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

About deleted articles, articles that are reposted near, exactly or don't address concerns noted can be deleted as reposts. However, if the article is completly revamped it can stay up, I think you know that, but just telling you in case. Yanksox 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders are always good. In this case, that proviso doesn't apply, so I didn't mention it. It's not like the subject is a porn star or pro-wrestler... he just doesn't rate an article. Rklawton 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, I've been following the article was prepared to PROD, it isn't deserving of a page. Yanksox 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pediatrics

Not really sure what you mean when you say that the image looks off the page. I moved the image because almost every single article page that I see on Wikipedia allows the first text of the article to start in the top left corner. I can't remember any pages that had an image on the left side at the top of the page like that. Thanks. --MZMcBride 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who "we" is in your last post, but I can say that it is very uncommon (to the point of which that I've never seen it) that there pictures on the left side of an article page at the very top of the article. I went through many different featured articles to see if any had a picture on the left side like that, and I found none. Regarding the focus of the picture, I don't believe it matters at all if the picture is on one side or the other depending on the focus. I believe the picture should be kept on the right side of the page. --MZMcBride 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to new user CJC47 last month

I saw on User talk:CJC47 what you wrote after he added a vanity article about himself when he was just starting out:

"It may look like you're off to a bumpy start, but don't worry about that. I got first involved with Wikipedia when I unsuccessfully attempted to prove to one of my students that Wikipedia was an unreliable media. My contributions have been more useful since then. Folks here can be pretty patient and understanding. Rklawton 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)"

Thank you -- this was a thoughtful thing to do. We need more of this on Wikipedia when new users make misguided, but good faith, edits early on. So often someone bats them down tactlessly and with little coaching after a mistake. I think you'll be pleased to know that he's been a good contributor since then, with over 250 edits in his history -- perhaps thanks in part to your encouragement.
--A. B. 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear on both accounts. Thank you for brightening my day! Rklawton 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance CJC47 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First, Rklawton looks too obstinate, but then you understand that he just wants to be as fair as possible. Overall, I would say that he is a great asset to Wikipedia, and he made me like Wikipedia even more. ~~by TheLinguist~~

Prod

Hi,

Just so you know, being prodded does not mean we "assumes there's something to fix." A page can be prodded if one assumes the deletion would go virtually uncontested. This gives five days for improvement without clogging AfD. AfD also gives five days for improvement, but cost the added effort of a debate. You shouldn't AfD items unless you believe there is something to debate about whether or not they are deletable. Prod is for likely deletable stuff that happens not to fall under a CSD. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing to contest, then it should have been speedied. Neologisms are not fixable. If you want to end a needless debate, you may speedy the article yourself. Rklawton 05:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms do not fit under any CSD. Any speedy would be plainly out of process. Xoloz 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the reason they do not is that there is always a question of fact as to whether the matter is neologistic, or simply jargon. That question fact can be resolved in silence, by waiting (through Prod); or through debate with waiting (AfD). Xoloz 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the speedy template I used permits the editor to fill in the blank - so common sense speedies must indeed be allowed. Neologisms are never permitted in Wikipedia, so it makes perfect sense to speedy the article. Even if it's jargon or slang or whatever you want to call it, if an index of a few billion web pages fails to turn up any instance of the word, then it simply doesn't exist. Above all, use common sense. There is no hope for this article, it isn't worth the wasted AfD time, but you want to hold out for what? Speedy the article and get it over with or be responsible for wasting people's time. Use some common sense for Pete's sake. Rklawton 05:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, Mr. Lawton. I hold out for the very good reason that world is not entirely made by Google and the internet, and evidence for the term may exist elsewhere. It is unlikely, but it is possible; and being thorough and judicious in every case is best practice, supported by policy, and good common sense. There is a reason the CSDs are narrow. Meanwhile, getting sufficiently riled over this article to lose patience with an admin is not common sense, in my view. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that asking an admin to use common sense demonstrates lack of patience? That's a rather hard connection to make. It's also interesting to note that you actually agree that this word likely does not exist. We use speedies to rid Wikipedia of crap, and in all my time reviewing neologisms, this is the first one that has turned up zero hits outside of Google. Given this word's political taint, the likelihood of it not appearing on at least one political blog is remote. You certainly aren't going to find it in some musty old text in a dusty old library. If CSDs are as narrow as you say, then "db|because" would not exist. A clearer case for deletion would be hard to make. Rklawton 05:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busy wiki-day, so I only have time to correct the most glaring of your several misapprehensions: "db|because" exists for those editors who, quite understandably, would rather not memorize the CSDs, and would simply like to write free-hand their rationale. It is not, as you seem to suggest, an invitation to extend CSDs willy-nilly. And, while I'm here, I'm suggesting that you assume good faith, realize that I use my common sense (which, it appears, is not equivalent to yours), and avoid the accusatory tone of your previous post : "Speedy the article and get it over with or be responsible for wasting people's time. Use some common sense for Pete's sake." Best wishes, Xoloz 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's one interpretation of "because" but not the only one. If you review the RfD page, you'll see it's 100% delete. It was a no brainer from the start - and that's where common sense kicks in. Rklawton 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew deletion was very likely; however, my common sense builds in fail-safes to prevent unintended mistakes, fail-safes echoed in wiki-process: among these are the five-day window. It is unfortunate for all that you seem incapable of grasping the wisdom in these, but those who do understand will always be around to forestall overly hasty choices. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An occasional apology is a small price to pay in exchange for both efficiency and effectiveness. As it stands, we've got an article online that's a discredit to Wikipedia. We have volunteers performing redundant reviews. And we have you to thank for it. Rklawton 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user talk pages

Hi Rklawton,

You recently left a welcome message on User:Gombert Girl's user page. I believe messages like these are supposed to be left on talk pages? That way the user gets a "you have new messages" note and she gets to create her user page herself when she gets around to it. But I wanted to confirm with you because you seem to be a more experienced editor than me. --Grace 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on that one. I've made the correction. Cheers! Rklawton 21:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing edit war

I have proposed a solution to the current edit war over categorizing clothing articles at Talk:History_of_Western_fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War. Please join the discussion. - PKM 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

Your behavior is despicable and will not be tolerated. I am not first best random anon vandal to revert me. `'mikka (t) 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad tidings to you, too, brother editor. I'm afraid that the best of my English skills fail me when interpreting your second sentence, though your first reads clear enough. I'll be happy to pass both along to our fellow editors managing the date article project page. Wiser heads than mine can decide. Blessings to you! Rklawton 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations welcome here:

[Stalin's] Death

Report me where you want! (by User:66.99.3.88)

OK Rklawton 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stubs

hi- just a note to say that buildings dont get geo-stub and architecture-stub combinations - they're for geographical features and architecture styles. buildings get struct-stub or (in the case of Madison Theater) US-struct-stub. cheers :) BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I created four building articles today, and when someone added those stubs to one, I assumed it was a good idea. All four are on the national registry, so I'm guessing they'll all get the US-struct-stub. I'll revisit them in a few minutes. Thanks again for the heads up. It's building-shooting season... Rklawton 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boy meets barber.JPG

I think the tag to use is {{NowCommons}}. The commons file name needs to go in there too. — getcrunk what?! 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rklawton 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UTFSF

Good job updating that article, which I originally dismissed as vandalism, into a workable, encyclopedic subject. I'd now support removing the speedy delete tag from it, if you wish to do it. Cheers! Autopilots 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It probably was just vandalism. But after I Googled the topic and recalled my own frustration with folks who don't UTFSF, well, the solution seemed obvious. Although I still wouldn't oppose a merger with RTFM. Rklawton 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADARSH SAMAJ SAHYOG SAMITI bites the dust

You had commented on this article. We all thought it was probably pretty marginal, but the way it was deleted seems a bit gratuitous.

--A. B. 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I see you went to Rice -- what a great school. My son just started there last fall (and before you ask: Sid Rich).

Thanks for the heads up. I left a note seconding your concerns. The admin's bio & photo cracked me up... Yeah, I like Red Beans and RICE (JGSA). Rklawton 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Samaj

I've restored the page per the requests. My reason for the deletion was it does not assert any particular importance, is not wikified, and was titled in all caps (not a good sign for a "real" article). I changed the Speedy Request to a PROD and moved to a proper title. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and remember, your user page says you like to help out new users. Showing new users how to improve their good faith efforts is a great way to help them out. Deleting their articles is not. Rklawton 19:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your many thousand contributions to Wikipedia, especially in maintaining the integrity of Wikicalendar. Keep up the great work! Fabricationary 03:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which vs. that

"That" is restrictive and "which" is non-restrictive. "That" is used to present information necessary to clarify the subject: "I want the shirt that is blue." "Which" provides additional information that's not strictly necessary to get the idea across: "I want the blue shirt, which is next to the red shirt." If there are two blue shirts, I need to use "that" to specify which one I'm talking about: "I want the blue shirt that's next to the green shirt." "After Burns left Blue's Clues in 2002, he recorded a rock album, Songs for Dustmites, that was released in 2003." "That" is incorrect here. There's only one rock album; the one recorded after Burns left Blue's Clues. The fact that it was released in 2003 is interesting and pertinent, but not grammatically necessary. That makes it a "which" clause, i.e. it is providing extra information.

See: Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, 4th ed. p. 59 or the style manual of your choosing. Most/all of them will confirm this usage. I've restored the correction to the article. Dppowell 05:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to follow the Microsoft Grammar Checker; that which generally suggests using "that" in most cases. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Rklawton 13:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Samaj Sahyog Samiti

Hi Rklawton, for the above article, my interest was limited to technical de-prodding as it had been de-prodded before and hence cannot be re-prodded. I'm not sure it is notable and I think that I'd give it a "no vote." Pl. feel free to take it to AfD. btw, your userpage makes for some interesting reading! --Gurubrahma 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Indian language content (unlike Chinese dialects) is conspicuous by its absence on the web. However, I've done a google search with different transliterations (or spellings) as well as a google search for its founder. I haven't come up with anything substantial. I'm an avid observer of non-governmental organisations in India but this name doesn't ring a bell. I feel that I'd vote a Weak delete - Verifiability and notability are like canon to me. --Gurubrahma 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Walton

Why did you delete the artist Aaron Walton? He is a national recording artist who is signed to a major label. (by User:Alw4416)

He is a self-published wannabe with no notability. See the AfD discussion for details Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Walton. Rklawton 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell are you to call him a "wannabe" and what is your basis? (by User:Alw4416)

Actually, it's the other way around. In order for an individual to be entitled to a biographical article in this encyclopedia, it is the author who must prove notability. That failed quite spectacularly in this case. Rklawton 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are new artists that exists that have not yet reached "superstardom" Your reasoning seems quite personal and rude to boot! Snide comments about an individuals photo is lame and jealous at best. (by User:Alw4416)

New artists don't rate articles in Wikipedia until they have achieved Wikipedia's standards for notability, see WP:BAND. I see you are rather new here. As a result, you would benefit from reading and learning rather than ranting. If you would review the AfD page again, you'll see that those comments are not attributed to me. They are attributed to other editors or admins. Please also note that the term "Speedy Delete" is used only in cases where the article is so bad that it's deletion doesn't even merit debate. In short, the article was extraordinarily unworthy and was promptly deleted - not by me - but by one of Wikipedia's administrators; it was a decision I fully support. Rklawton 16:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and Andrew Jackson

Thanks for the edits and the references to Andrew Jackson. I'm not sure if you know it, but there is now a method to use a standard citation method that creates very clean references. If you use Template:Cite_book for instance, and surround it with <ref></ref> Then it will automagically create the superscript number and put it down in the reference section. If it's too much work, no worries, I'm just glad anyone is actually providing references. :) Wikibofh_(talk) 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I'm aware of something along those lines, but I haven't a clue how to do it. I'll jump into my sandbox in a minute and see if I can get it to work. Feel free to format my references for the betterment of the article. In fact, if you do, I can follow your example. If you need more information from the source, don't hesitate to ask. I've got the book by my desk. And thank you for your interest! Rklawton 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. :) I pulled the book information from Amazon, so I presume ISBN, author, etc are correct...I used the paperback, so if you have the hardcover those details (ISBN, and date) may change. Hope that helps. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great, but what do I do if I use the same source more than once in an article? Rklawton 23:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Cut-n-paste? :) It's just a template, no real way to cross reference. I suppose you could do it, but probably not a good idea. :) Wikibofh_(talk) 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condoleeza Rice

Hi,

Condoleeza Rice has never claimed to be fluent in Russian. She has studied it, but she isn't fluent. For example in her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address she talks about studying Russian, writting Russian and speaking it. But that's a far cry from speaking it like a native.

Juliet Bravo

She never claims she's not. Others claim she is. The key to Wikipedia is verifiability. Since you can't verify your position, it doesn't belong in the article in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary. Rklawton 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton:

July 1 2006 edition of The Daily Telegraph (one of United Kingdom's most prestigious newspapers):

"There were other angry exchanges during the conversation [between Condoleeza Rice and Sergei Lavrov], which was conducted in English because, although an experienced Sovietologist, Miss Rice's Russian is poor."

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/01/wruss01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/01/ixnews.html

I will also re-state that the venerable and peerless Condoleeza Rice has never claimed to be fluent. Also, if you read her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address, your evience, it's clear that she is not fluent. I give her full credit for studying the Russian language. But SHE IS NOT FLUENT.

Game. Set. Match. Juliet Bravo

Note also that Rice's non-claim is non-evidence. A denial might be evidence (or it might be modesty), so you'll do better dropping that point.

Next: Be careful before declairing game/set/match. It's rude and it's wrong. A single reporter's interpretation of Rice's skills is not a game/set/match. It's simply a point in your favor. Another intepretation of this exchange is simple - when fighting a battle, it's better to fight on territory you know the best - in this case, English. At any rate, it's not an article about her speaking skills, it's an article about Iraq diplomacy. Many more articles reference her fluency. Here's one that is a bit more telling [2]. It's also more informative than the article you provided. Rklawton 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rklawton,

Rice is not fluent in Russian! I feel like I've taken crazy pills and no one is looking at the evidence. You cite her 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address as evidence. Actually, it shows that she isn't fluent; she hasn't studied it enough. And once again you've provided "evidence" that isn't evidence at all. This transcipt proves nothing! The relevant bits aren't translated into English: we have no idea what she said.

So, if we take your approach, why not claim that Rice speaks Swahili. According to your methodology, there's no proof against it so it is perfectly legitimate to put it into Wikipedia. Does that sound right to you?

If you have definitive proof about her linguistic prowess then provide it. If not, let's be cautious and not leave it in the article; it's too much of a question mark. Juliet Bravo

I've provided a half-dozen links from internationally recognized media sources referencing her fluency on her Talk page. Rklawton 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton:

So what? If one media outlet mistakenly asserts that she's fluent, then they all will. And if that claim is proved wrong, they can shift the blame to that initial report. You can cite a million reports about her fluency. None of them are definitive, which is what we need to say that she is fluent.

Incidentially, you're being very quiet about the previous "evidence" you mentioned, i.e. that 1993 Northeast Conference Keynote Address you're so fond of. Did you actually read it? Or how about that transcript that did not prove her fluency one way or another?

Your serve...

Juliet Bravo

I've read it. Your failure so far is in verifiability. You can't verify that she doesn't speak fluent Russian, and I can verify that she does. If you want to posit the media's reports on her fluency comes from a single source, then you should provide a verifiable source stating such. Rklawton 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton:

I've read the latest update of the Condoleeza Rice article. I am happy with the compromise. I've enjoyed crossing swords with you, and ultimately it re-affirms the spirit of Wikipedia.

Juliet Bravo

From WallWalker

Hey, thanks for the info. I do love my wall walking, so I decided to make that my first article. - WallWalker 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Killers on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Late Night Killers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. (by User:Targetter)

Actually, I neither closed the discussion nor speedy deleted the article. I did, however, change the tag from "copyvio" to "band," and will add comments per your suggestion accordingly. Rklawton 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teleflex.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm greatful for your help on the Teleflex, Inc. article. Keep up the great work. Ackander 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I got a message from you assuming I did some editing on daVinci code. But I haven't yet edited that page. Then why such a message? I thing u are mistaken.. 61.1.233.245 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the SPAM entry.[3] You'll see that it comes from your IP address. It's entirely possible you are using a dynamic IP address, one that your Internet service provider assigns to dial-up users as needed. In such cases, someone else may have made the entry using the same IP address. You can avoid this problem by creating your own account and password here at Wikipedia. It's easy, it's free, and you won't have to worry about annoying messages left as a result of someone else's work. Rklawton 16:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworld Ship Consolidation

It had been considered to put the ships into a large table, unfortunately they're not just stats. Various descriptions, limitations, uses, special abilities, and development histories are available for a large number of ships. At present, I'm going through and making the skeleton articles without this written information, which will be filled in later.

--Twile 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Human Calculator" article

Dear Rklawton, gee, thanks a lot for helping me by just now on about improving the two of the both related Wiki-articles of the Human Calculator and Scott Flansburg! Guess I might owe you one! -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

I tried to adjust the style so it reads more like an encyclopedia. All that "Press" crap makes it read like an ad. The article shouldn't focus on what he has to sell. It should focus on his talents and achievements. If the advertisement tone persists, I'm going to tag it for AfD. It won't pass, but an extra dozen editors deleting the "Press" section would do the article some good. Rklawton 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hhmmm..... You might be right about those ad stuffs and you really had some points there. However, I'm still doubt or still not sure about it because I believe there are yet many other Wiki-articles with those similar ads written down as well such as Bryan Berg (take that article for example), in which that article also has a lot to do or resolve with those ads or The Press(es) coupled with a lot of Wikilinks under his article section entitled the "Cardstacker Press"! What do you think and how will you consider about that? -onWheeZierPLot Sunday, 9th July, 2006ad.

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. Later this evening I will review the article you mentioned and edit it as needed. Rklawton 23:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

+1 to your count. ; ) Restrored your page back from a vandal.

Thanks, he's peeved 'cause his no-hit website is up for AfD. Rklawton 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wtf?

how the hell is it nonsense? its a real site. (by User:Malik1)

Thats why it was in popular culture DUHHH (by User:Malik1)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my userpage :). Fabricationary 17:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting "nn events"

I have reverted your edit for the article of June 25. It appears that these events that you have reverted appear to be notable enough to be listed on the page. If you need anything feel free to contact me! Yank sox 21:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I have read the page, but the World Cup is a bit more on the global scale and not limiting like an American Sports Championship. I'm also somewhat skepticial of reverting when Political leaders of a medium/large country are placed in office. But that's just me. Thanks! Yank sox 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I've added the page to my talk and will visit it once again to drop in my $0.02. Hope everything goed well with you. Yank sox 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. Rklawton 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop stalking me

Im getting scared :x btw how do I leave a sig or something like everyone else has. Does wikipedia editing use html?

Was getting mad

But you're a cool dude and I appreciate your help. I was just mad my additions were deleted :/ Malik1 15:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Malik1[reply]

No worries. I know just how it feels. Stop by any time you need a hand or have a question about something. Rklawton 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wont link to my name

whats going on it doesnt link to my name! and how do I add a message to a topic already started? Malik1 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the 4 tildes - everything's automatic after that. You don't have to type in your name at all. Rklawton 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DUDE!

What's your deal? It's my talk page. Go back to your nerdery and take more pictures. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deal is that you aren't very familiar with the culture here, and you keep butting heads up against it. It's not customary to delete items from you talk page (archiving is a different matter). If you wish to do well on your next RfA, you'll want to avoid (or correct) these kinds of mistakes. Rklawton 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slyder Pilot

I left him a gentle warning on his talk page. We'll see if that does any good. I'm inclined to let the removals he's already made stand, but would take a further line if he does it again in the future. I don't think a formal warning message would help right now - a softer approach may get better results. We'll see. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, Gwernol 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your approach. Thanks for pitching in. Rklawton 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will read up on archiving later tonight. That is all and good day. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 21:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band

They actually got a google hit? Whoa that's impressive. --Fearisstrong 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image of child patient

i'm somewhat concerned about the consent requirement for Image:Pediatric polysomnogram.jpg, uploaded by u. am particularlytroubled by its use in Patient, where i would think there must be many other alternatives, of adult subjects (but that's a topic for that talk page...). Doldrums 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresa

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Fresa, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --ais523 13:32, 13 July 2006 (U T C)

As it happens, I myself think this could be controversial, so I'll take it to AfD. --ais523 13:32, 13 July 2006 (U T C)

Good advice. AfD sounds fine to me. See you there. Rklawton 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just standing up for cathtreks, my housemate and friend

That troll mitton or litton or whatever its name really is here normaly, just set up that phony name for one purpose, Rklawton, and that is that "they" are just trying to bait cathitreks once again, just when things had been calming down, I feel it is my patriotic duty to stand up for Cathi and the truth, and they deserved a slap for a punch...at my friend Cathi! Oh and btw, I was just removing unnessisary junk on my setup page, there were not any "messages" from anybody, just the usual intro bot crap! Thanks for your compassion towards Cathi at the least, how rare! Tinki. (Tinki Winki 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. Given the formatting, it looked like you were addressing Cathi and not the Troll. I agree, someone is trying pretty hard to bait her. Tell her I said "hi". Rklawton 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Jalapeños

I saw your comment on the talk page for jalapeño that there should be a growing section, but everything I could find on the internet was about growing peppers in general. Maybe there could be an article or a section of the Capsicum page about growing peppers, but I don't feel qualified to write it (and I don't have an account here, anyways). 4.245.149.173 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn events

What is an "nn event"? I'm assuming it means "not news," but I'm not sure. Could you direct me to an official page explaining wiki policy on dates? Thanks. --Nick 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help dealing with an anonymous uesr?

Hey Rklawton, an anonymous user with IP 128.226.219.107 has added non-notable events (some wedding involving some celeb, and a bachelor party of some celeb, on September 26 and June 10 respectively. I've left three messages on the user's talk page (as well as edit summaries) asking for an explanation, but he/she has not responded. I have made one revert to each page, and the user has made two, almost at the 3RR. Could you tell me what you think about the sitation? Thanks. Fabricationary 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). Glad your power is back - I still have relatives without power, though luckily the power never went out here. Fabricationary 01:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not vandalism

thank you for the effort lawton, but it was unnecessary. what i did was not vandalism. the user happens to be a friend of mine and the fruit-fucker (which is what the picture is of) happens to be a sort of inside joke (if you read penny arcade, which you should, you would know what i was talking about). anyways, id appreciate it if you didnt baselessly accuse me of vandalism. thanks! Benji64 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

youll notice that my version has now been reverted to by the user. please dont think of me as a vandal because im not, and i dont want to be thought of as one. happy editing. Benji64 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern that your edits constituted vandalism was far from baseless.[4] Any reasonable person reading your edits to his site would arrive at the same conclusion. It appears one other editor did. However, I am quite happy to stand corrected. Rklawton 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved a copy of the last one and made changes to it. I am planning on adding bios on many Hilltop Leaders who have recived alot of local press lately (in the last few weeks.) The notablity of these people have incresaed greatly since the election of June 24th. And I see RKlawton refered to the Hilltop Area Commission as a group of elite homeowners. I guess he doesn't know that this group actually is a city council just to the Hilltop. City council gives local residents power to re-zone and make decesions on their own. But he doesn't live on the Hilltop so he wouldn't know this User:jjboyle 4:44 EDT July 24, 2006