Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Reatlas, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We typically use a pipe link to go to the name of the article itself rather than having it go to the redirect [1]. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
[2] What was wrong with the original wording and what does your wording even mean? "Unusually has"? I could expect "usually has" or "doesn't usually have," but it's even not the point, the word "unusually" describes the adjective. But if you know the language better than me (which is a possibility, given I'm just an English learner), then please tell me, will be glad to hear something new--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
The phrase is pointing out that this is an unusual property of NF, rather then saying what should be standard for it. Let me try and explain by example; If i say, "I don't usually have breakfast in the morning" or "I usually have breakfast in the afternoon", this implies my usual routine is to eat later in the day, whereas to say "Unusually, I like breakfast after lunch", this says nothing of what is my usual schedule, but points out that what I like to do is not a usual thing for people. The first wording wasn't grammatically right, it should have been "has an unusually high bond order" or "an unusual higher bond order". Reatlas(talk) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aha, I see your point, but I have never heard/seen someone speak in such a manner. Just one more question, if you don't mind: where are you from? (I want to know what English variety you're speaking)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Your argument for reverting the edit is invalid. There is no article titled "Bubble universe". The article concerning bubble universes is Eternal inflation. Why have a link that simply redirects? Don't remove the link as it is, because yours is wrong. Italia2006 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Because, we have a editing guideline which specifically says that a link that redirects is preferable to a piped link to the same page. I clearly linked WP:NOTBROKEN in my edit summary. Reatlas(talk) 05:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's not editing a visible link, is it? Read the guidelines again. The visible part of the link still reads "Bubble universes", that's all that matters here. Italia2006 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Did you read it? Direct quote: "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." This is exactly what you are doing and it certainly does matter because this is against guidelines for reasons that are certainly mentioned on that page. If you have an issue with this guideline bring it up on on the project page, not here. Reatlas(talk) 05:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have reverted your edit to honesty per WP:MALPLACED, which prohibits an undisambiguated title page from redirecting to a (disambiguation) title. The appropriate process for resolving such a page is to nominate the page for deletion, and then move the disambig page to that title if a consensus for deletion is developed. However, my opinion is that honesty is a basic subject for which an article exists, and there are plentiful sources to draw from in writing such an article. Cheers! bd2412T 02:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Reatlas, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, Reatlas! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 06:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Strathcona Composite High School, Edmonton (Gaylord Edit)
This the third time that I have changed the name of the Strathcona High School mascot to "GayLord the Lion" (which it is) from "the Lords" (which is the school team name). It may be hard for you to accept that our school mascot is called GayLord the Lion in this day and age, however, such is the case. Fortunately I have found a reference and have added it.
I hope this will end the deletes (http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=6d75d0fc-fab7-4448-80ba-fe4bd478a606&sponsor=)
Thank you Lorne LeClerc (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Lorne LeClerc (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Reatlas, are you a Singaporean? If you are, then you are invited to join WikiProject Singapore. Joining is optional, but if you choose to join, just add your username to the members list on the page. Cheers and continue improving Singapore-related articles! ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎ 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
> Adding ref; please do explain the point of demanding an alternate with source if this isn't already cited anyway...
The data was cited with a source, but it had been removed since I last checked. I didn't notice that when I added the remark. Thanks for putting it back in! InternetMeme (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I think we just tried to revert the same article (Nineteen Eighty Four) and ended up reverting each other. I'll leave it for a few minutes, then check again. Koro Neil (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm inexperienced on Wikipedia, so I don't know how to cite articles, maybe you could help me. I follow the conflict in Somalia closely, here are several sources indicating Gary Schroen was assassinated by the Shabaab earlier this week.
Welcome to Wikipedia, here's a page that covers most of the information about citing sources.
The most basic method (assuming you are using the "edit source" mode) is to put the reference in between a "<ref>" and a "</ref>", so it should look like this: "I like sandwich<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reatlas/sandbox</ref>" which appears as: "I like sandwich[1]" on the page. Then add a "{{reflist}}" to the reference section of the page, which will make this appear:
And the source is cited. Of course, if you are more experienced, there are several templates that can be accessed from the "Cite" menu above the editing box, which give you a few entry boxes for information on the source. — Reatlas(talk) 04:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avivore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I find that rather doubtful. However if you can prove your edit is constructive and not vandalism, you may by all means do so. — Reatlas(talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Reatlas! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.
We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.
We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Just a misunderstanding
This is from one of the PHDs that contributes to Webster.......Live and learn. You shouldn't be so quick to say a grammar rule is "silly". "Use brackets in sentences where you want to put parentheses within parentheses. Since two parentheses in a row, or in the same sentence is confusing, you bookend your parentheses with brackets. So, the order is opening parenthesis, opening bracket, closing bracket, closing parenthesis. For example, you would write: They are getting married (they love each other [of course!])." (The last edit you made where you reworded the sentence so as not to have the parentheses split and looking incomplete, is an improvement, however, it really isn't proper grammar). Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is thst there is no strict rule against nesting brackets of the same shape, but using different shapes is preferred, ([{}]), since it makes the structure more obvious. Of course, since only three different shapes are easily available, a nest that is more than three brackets deep must include ones of the same shape. In mathematics, computer programming, etc., the use of nests of identical brackets is standard practice. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I not sure what you are going on about with webster or PHDs, but it seems that you misunderstood my summary and edit. I was not saying using square brackets as opposed to nested curved brackets was wrong, I was saying that providing a conversion from kg to tonnes on such orders of magnitude was unnecessary. If you feel that my grammar was poor, you may by all means revert the change under BRD and we can discuss it. I won't edit war. — Reatlas(talk) 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Reatlas, We have a misunderstanding here. I never changed the KG to miles conversion is any way shape or form, other than to put [ ] around the conversions because they were in a sentence within parentheses, and they had an additional set of parentheses around them all bunched up together. However, after I made the edit, you reversed it and left this comment to embarrass me: "(and just a dummy edit to say - of course you can have nested parentheses - what a strange idea that you can't...))". All I did was make the sentence easier to read. If you go back and compare revisions, I'm sure you would agree that the way the paragraph was originally written, was a bit more than confusing. Calling an editor a "Dummy" who works hard to do all he can to make this a better place, was a poor choice on your part. A simple reversal would have sufficed. You could have left me a message in my talk box if you disagreed with my grammar improvements, or the logic behind them. Then we would have had a pleasant conversation, and perhaps we both would have leaned something. That's what it's all about ....Right? Happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we do indeed have quite a misunderstanding here. Firstly, User:Begoon was the one who mentioned a dummy edit, not me, and secondly, a dummy edit is a name for a type of edit that makes no change to the page but simply allows summary to be made. In fact, I think you yourself made such an edit to call my grammar poor just afterwards. Neither I nor Begoon was calling you a dummy, and I certainly don't think you are one. Now, I never reversed your edit and there was certainly nothing wrong with it. However, on seeing the confusing way the text was written, I decided to simply remove the tonne conversion altogether and thus resolve any such confusion. I reiterate; I didn't mean you any insult and I didn't disagree with your edit. I merely saw a chance to improve the page and did so. I hope this clears up the situation. — Reatlas(talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
In the future, I will be more observant as to who left their summaries. My apologies. Happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am guessing that you reverted my addition of DaVinci Systems email system because you have never heard of it? Is that correct? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, it's because it was a redlink with no citation to give any proof of notability. — Reatlas(talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, no citation. That would cause the deletion of 99% of Wikipedia wouldn't it? What you should have done, if it bothered you so intensely, was remove the brackets, which I inserted so that maybe someone else would follow with the development of an article on overlooked entry. I, however, did not want to spend the time developing the article, which is why I left that way. I don't know if you are unfamiliar with technology or not, or maybe just to new to it. It is also possible that you are in a different part of the world which would not have seen that technology in the United States. If you were in technology in the 1980s or 1990s in the U.S. you would have heard of, or been personally familiar with it.
I don't know if you have noticed but more than 50% of known western history is not included on Wikipedia because no one has access to most information prior to the late 1990s. That is a faux pas of the transference of human knowledge to its current quasi-digital state. Does that mean that all of these things did not actually happen, and they are only a figment of our imaginations? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I assume you are familiar with WP:V? And sources don't need to be digital. Books, newspapers and research papers are just fine. — Reatlas(talk) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Realtlas, I noticed your last edit in the Sun article where you say: "Should have seen that one the last time". Yesterday I noticed that you left the letter 'a' in this sentence: "color is actually a white". I left it alone after my last fiasco.....lol, and figured you would catch it later; or...did you mean to leave it? If so, is that correct grammar? I think my English professor might disagree with you..:) If you wanted to say it was a certain kind of a white, you could have said: "it is a shade of white". Thanks:Pocketthis (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I meant the misplaced formatting [[|stellar classification|classified]]. As for grammar, I meant to leave it because as far as I know (knew?) a white was a perfectly valid phrase. No problem, we can change it to a shade of white to be clearer though. — Reatlas(talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is the exact opposite of what the guideline is about. Albert Einstein is the article. [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] is the best way to pipe this. WP:NOTBROKEN is specifically about the lack of need to bypass redirects, i.e. there is no need, of changing a link of say [[Einstein]] to [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] if it's the only edit you're going to make. But one should certainly not be doing the opposite, i.e. changing [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] to [[Einstein]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, the guideline is about not having unnecessarily piped links. And there is a specific list of reasons why not to bypass redirects. — Reatlas(talk) 10:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To be honest, today I was so fed up of these 'editors' that I had decided to give up on Wikipedia completely. Since I love contributing to health topics and essential nutrients, I visited pages like Magnesium and Ginseng, spent at least half an hour getting references for all the information I already know but obviously I needed references to support what I knew. And these expert know it all editors like Alexbrn come in and keep reverting my stuff again telling me the references from Maryland university, NHS and other websites were not good enough :O Anyway, good to see contributors like you :) Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyGirl911 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
This sort of thing is actually a major problem affecting Wikipedia; a new contributor adds usable content but gets reverted because they aren't familiar with the formatting, style or policies. Glad I could be of assistance, if you need further help, you can also ask the Teahouse or WikiProject Medicine. — Reatlas(talk) 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Help with one more thing on the article for Ng Ser Miangedit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Reatlas, I've just left you a note over at Talk:Ng Ser Miang about adding a new photo of him to the article. If you have a moment, could you take a look? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Good evening, Reatlas.
I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit to the Sergei Kostitsyn article. I was simply trying to provide (as many users have before me) a standard transliteration of Kostitsyn's name from his native Belarusian language, as is typically done on English Wikipedia pages for famous persons from countries where the Cyrillic alphabet is used. If you desire to use the Russian translation, please spell his middle name Olegovich rather than Olegovič. --Demolition man (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Recently, resistance to even vancomycin has been shown in some strains of S. aureus (sometimes referred to as [[Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus|vancomycin resistant S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12844323 |title=What is an adequate trial with clozapine?... [Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI |publisher=Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |date=2013-03-25 |
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please do not over-write HTML codes such as &-m-d-a-s-h-; (without the dashes) with ASCII equivalents as you did at metric system. They are there because we cannot guarantee that all devices can render the symbol correctly. Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is "Recognised" suitable to describe English on the info-box in regards to this Section of Article 82 on the Country's Constitution?
http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LOB/cons_doc/dokumen-dokumen_perlembagaan_2008.pdf
Article 82
Section (2) An official version in the English language shall be provided of anything which, by this Constitution or by any written law or by the Standing Orders, is required to be printed or in writing, and such version shall, in addition to the official Malay version, be accepted as an authentic text. Alevero987 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
with respect, the mos is "not a suicide pact", nor is it a chain around our necks.
it is also somewhat dated, on a number of subjects.
if you can think of a BETTER way to include the link to commons, then go right ahead; but if you are really just going to keep on removing it, for petty reasons, WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ARTICLE, OR USERS, then please stop.
you have also used up your 3r's & now have at least 3 users who disagree with you about this edit.
if you feel the need, then we can go through the whole process on this one; but, with respect, you're wrong.
i haven't reported you for the 3r thing, but i will, if you keep it up.
sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes you do need to SHOUT, when people just aren't listening, or understanding, or thinking things through.
with respect, & in the hopes that we can resolve this peacefully,
I'm not saying we need to follow any guideline at all costs, I am aware of WP:IAR and its implications. However, the MOS does exist for a reason.
The point of having an external links section to so consolidate all the links rather than having them spread throughout the article. This isn't, in my opinion, a controversial or dated idea. Established practice is not pettiness.
Yes. Place it in the external links section because it's an external link. That's what I've been doing in the last two edits before you reverted.
The reason why I even ventured near the 3R limit is because I keep being undone withoutanyexplanation. No reason given, just revert revert revert. Also, it's two editors, not three.
Yes please. I don't want to skip discussion because surprisingly, I feel (with all due respect) that I'm not wrong.
You started shouting in the very first edit, which seems to me that you weren't assuming good faith on my part.
Well thanks so very much for that I appreciate the thought.
Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I just noticed your edit to the article on Metallurgy, changing "world" to "global". While it is not a big deal, I just wondered why you changed it. I kind of like "world" here. I think "global" is used more for politics, weather, and abstract concepts.CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
"World metal production" is grammatically incorrect. You can change it to "metal production worldwide" or "the world's metal production" instead of global. — Reatlas(talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
How is 'world metal production' grammatically incorrect? Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
World is a noun, not an adjective. — Reatlas(talk) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nouns are frequently used as adjectives. See 'research papers' above for example. Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
At the end of the 'E-mail article edits - Da Vinci' section. Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I seem to be misunderstanding my own comments then. How exactly is "research papers" being used as an adjective? — Reatlas(talk) 02:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
'Research' is the adjective and 'papers' is its noun. 'Research' can also be a noun and a verb. Rothorpe (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see. "Research" and "papers" rather than "Research papers". Isn't "research" being used as a noun in this case? — Reatlas(talk) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well that is true. "World metal production" just sounds strange to me. — Reatlas(talk) 14:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Ah, well, that's better than 'incorrect'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I forgot to come back to this page until now. The above exchange is interesting, but I have to agree with Rothorpe that in English, nouns are used as adjectives all the time. Also, to me, "global metal production" sounds strange. "World wheat production levels", "world rice production", "world trade figures", "world bauxite production", "world industrial output" -- I've heard these phrases often. I've heard "global" more in phrases such as "Global warming", "global communication networks", "global corporation", and "global economic issues".CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I just noticed you have reverted my edit in Antideuterium part of Deuterium. Is it Antideuteron or Antideuterium? Sabbarish (talk) 1:48 PM, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's antideuteron. If you read the section, it specifically mentions antideuteron as the antiparticle to a deuterium nucleus (deuteron), and the sentence after next explains that antideuterium is a positron orbiting an antideuteron. — Reatlas(talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then why didn't you change the title? It's Anti Deuterium over there!! Sabbarish (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Because the section is about antideuterium, even though it starts off with an explanation on the closely related antideuterons. — Reatlas(talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
However yo! Good Bye! Sabbarish (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
good day. i want to apologize for my mistake. i was in the middle of a rush work. thank you for notifying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.150.250 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Caillou: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Help with reviewing the Seyfert galaxy articleedit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Reatlas,
I noticed you did some work on other similar astronomy articles, and I'd like to ask you to have a look at the article I'm currently working on, Seyfert galaxy. The work I do on this article represents my 4th year Honours project for physics and one of my aims is to bring the article to good article status. I would appreciate any feedback.
I'd be glad to help, but if you want an expert opinion on the subject matter I suggest you also leave a message with WikiProject Astronomy. Something similar is already on-going with Astronomical spectroscopy. — Reatlas(talk) 04:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
can you please change it rather than remove it altogether? Your deletion behaviour is unconstructive. Leave it there, anyone who is not satisfied can change it. Jackzhp (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Change it to what? "It seems that people still do not exactly know the polarization is explained with photons" If I had any idea what that meant I would clarify it instead of deleting. Nevertheless, I respect your request. — Reatlas(talk) 05:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I removed it again. A statement like that is going to need to be supported by a citation. Too speculative to let stand otherwise.--Srleffler (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Looks like a error in Autoformatter translation, replacing the wrong template; toter is german for dead and the script was originally for de.wiki. Anyway, thanks for the catch. — Reatlas(talk) 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Reatlas, Thanks for your edit. I am a dilettante when it comes to physics and would rank myself barely above High School AP courses, if that. As such, I don't really know about vapors and aerosols. I don't even know enough to plant a seed sentence. If you do, I think it would be a valuable distinction/explanation to add in the State of matter article. --Bertrc (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to De-ice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* [[Urea]] ({{chem|CO(NH|2}})|2}}), a common fertilizer)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stroboscopic effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 128.211.168.1 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Reatlas,
I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Reatlas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Reatlas. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Reatlas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. All is well. — Reatlas (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drug of last resort may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
