User talk:Rwessel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your revert to Binary prefix

Now that's what I call WP:AGF!  :) Jeh (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

See No Evil

Hi Rwessel. The edit in question was performed automatically when I deleted Dan Madigan (by Twinkle, I think. I wish it wouldn't do that.) I'll revert it. Marasmusine (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline/Delineate

As one of the few open-source raster-to-vector drawing programs, I think Delineate needs at least an outward link. Even the other programs (potrace and autotrace), which show no releases since 2007 and 2006, are still frequently used. I suppose the proper place to put the link is in List_of_raster_to_vector_conversion_software, where Delineate is mentioned in the "Free Software" section.

The reason I added Delineate to the Outline page is that Delineate autodirects to Outline. Folks looking for Delineate, the software, would hit a dead end. What would an editor do if Delineate needed its own page? Remove the autodirect? Markstock (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it's noteworthy, it should have an article. Why not start by creating Delineate (software). Doesn't have to be huge, but a couple of paragraphs describing it, something like MyPaint or something else at Comparison of raster graphics editors. Then change Delineate to redirect to Delineate (software), and we can consider adding a disambiguation link back to Outline later – “delineate” isn't really that great a synonym for Outline in the context of an encyclopedia. Rwessel (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, then fix the link at List_of_raster_to_vector_conversion_software. We should also clean up the other links to Delineate (Aeolus, and ...?) which don't appear relevant. Rwessel (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the suggestions. I'll first find out whether people are really using the software, or if they've all switched to the others. Markstock (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for fixing errors on the List of United States federal legislation pages! Jazzmista (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jazzmista has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie - Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Drive Bay Sizes

Its a bit of a chicken and egg, but I think you have it backwards. IMO, the form factor preceded the bay as follows.

Because of its market dominance in the late 1970s, all FDD manufactures sooner or later adopted the Shugart 8 and 5¼ FDD sizes in order to compete with Shugart for existing and future FDD business. The systems manufacturers then designed bays to accommodate the standard FDD form factors. Few 8-inch HDDs fit the 8-inch FDD bay; the SA1000 being the notable first and very successful such HDD. All 5¼-inch HDDs then fit the form factor of the 5¼-in FDD thus fitting the preexisting bays. The 3½-inch form factor went thru a number of iterations but ultimately the Microfloppy Industry Consortium defined a form factor (not Sony's) which all FDD drive manufacturers adopted and then a few years later HDD manufacturers also began producing. There never was a 2½ FDD so PrairieTek more or less set the drive FF, but there really is no "bay" to speak of. The last bay maybe the PCM and again the drive folks defined a standard that was then inculcated in a variety of systems.

So I would like to rewrite yr short paragraph with an equally short paragraph but getting the horse before the cart, so to speak. :-)Tom94022 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's reasonable. The important thing, IMO, is that most drives were manufactured in standard (FSVO "standard") sizes. And getting the history of those standards right is obviously good. OTOH, I would still be happy with deleting the section entirely. And Drive bay needs work too... Rwessel (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Floppy article invitation

Hi, you're invited in taking active part in editing/patrolling/reviewing Floppy disk hardware emulator. Hoping you'll enjoy it as you enjoed Floppy disk. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet counts

I see you went ahead and created Template:Extrasolar planet counts. Nice work. A couple of suggestions: Add a reference parameter to return a reference, for example using {{Cite web}}. Add the template to Category:Astronomy templates. Template names are often succinct and Template:Exoplanet and Template:Exoplanet search projects are already there. The new template could be moved to Template:Exoplanet counts. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have considered additional data items in the template, but choose not to add them without a better understanding of their use. And since it will be easy to add items (certainly easier than removing things), I thought I'd start with stuff I could clearly justify, and we could work up from there.

I did consider adding reference (and name) text, but unless I add both the full ref (with a name), and a named entry (certainly do-able, but it seems a bit ugly), then articles that add the ref in more than one place would end up with single-reference instead of multiple-reference footnotes. Alternatively adding a template parameter for the reference name is plausible, allowing the editors to create "normal" additional references.

I was also thinking of adding some of the Kepler (spacecraft) data to the template. Like the stuff that's there now, it's used in multiple places, OTOH, it's updated far less frequently.

I will definitely add the two categories you suggested, as soon as I:

Determine the final name of the template. I don't think the long-ish name is much of an issue (it's not like there are all that many uses), but I certainly have no particular attachment to the current name. I'm wondering how a template move works, however (it's not clear to me that templates can "redirect" like articles), although worst case the references can all be fixed manually (again, there aren't all that many).

I've also been considering other language Wikipedias. Obviously the editors at the (say) French WP could copy and modify the template to the fr: space. Alternatively, this might be moved to commons, although then date formatting becomes an issue for asof (and I'm trying to figure out if something like #dateformat is an appropriate tool for that. If references are added, those introduce language problems as well.

Comments welcome. Rwessel (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Template moves work fine. Transcluding a redirect to a template gives the same result as transcluding the template. Wikipedias can only transclude pages at their own language so a commons template would not work. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a bullet edit at C (Programming language)

I realize the point you made in the revert comment, but the change that I had made addressed several issues,

1) The fact that multiple assignments do not work on the same variable was not made clear. I propose changing the the text to "More than one variable may be assigned to in a statement. This is common in idiomatic C."

2) There are two sentences in that bullet; the first is kludgy, and the second does not reference assignment. The fact that function returns can be ignored is stating that they do not need to be assigned, but indirectly. The new bullet was to separate the two ideas (as they were written to be independent anyways).

3) Back to the original bullet, the 'idiomatic' link is not applicable except as an external link to a discussion on idiomatic statements in programming languages. The current article lacks the clarification one would expect from such a link, as it is more concerned with natural languages.

Do you agree? Disagree?... I don't want to change this back just to have you (or someone else) nuke it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcampb (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree partially. The function return comment deserves its own bullet. The idiomatic comment should get pulled. But I think just "multiple assignments allowed" is enough - this is not the spot to delve into what is or isn't undefined behavior according to the standard, and it's rather more complex than that anyway, involving side effects, aliased pointer dereferences, and whatnot. But I've made those changes. For the future, this sort of discussion should be on the talk page for the article, that way all the regular editors would see it (anyone who has the C (programming language) on their watch list, would also be notified of changes to the talk (discussion) page. For clarity, I'll copy this discussion to the article talk page, let's continue any discussion there. Rwessel (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Job!

I just wanted to drop you a note saying that you latest edits to Floppy disk hardware emulator are a big improvement. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator

In case you are interested, there is a RDN case about a page you have recently edited:

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator

Ypu dosn't have to get involved if you don't wish to, but your input would certainly be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Larkin (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) 10:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Potato

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Your edit summary in reverting my edit to user error made me laugh. Damn me for not considering base 36. 192.138.137.220 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi. You left a message in the Statistics project talk page recently. I think the appropriate project would be Wikipedia:Statistics Department, which deals/dealt with statistics of Wikipedia usage.... unfortunately it seems to be inactive, but it might be worth leaving your message there. Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics deals with articles about stastistics as applied "in the real world". Melcombe ([[User talk:Melcombe|talk]]) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

hii

hiiiii......Can you sujjest me some articles for editing on wikipedia

You could start at Category:Articles_needing_attention. Rwessel (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Larry Weir Category removal

Rwessel: the category created in error "Category: Larry Weir" has already been removed.

I have commented your speedy deletion template from "Category: Albums produced by Larry Weir" as this is the category I was trying to create.

Thank you 009o9 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, but I see no evidence that you ever created [[Category:Larry Weir]]. The only category you appear to have created (or done any edits to) is [[Category:Albums produced by Larry Weir]], hence I assumed that was the one you intended to delete. Rwessel (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New Count System At "Exoplanet Reference WebSite"?

Hello Rwessel - If Possible - May Need Some Help/Advice re Updating Counts For The Exoplanet Template - Seems The Presentation Of The Usual Reference WebSite Has Been Changed -> To A *Sortable Table* - The Count Of "Confirmed Exoplanets" (and the "AsOf" Date) Still Seems OK But The Count Of *CONFIRMED* "Planetary Systems" And The Count Of *CONFIRMED* "Multiple Planet Systems" *May* Not Be Determinable From The Table (the noted *detected* counts of either of these template variables may be ok however) - If Interested, More Details Are On The Template Talk Page - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Watch the diffs…

Hi, Rwessel. Regarding this diff: I'm not the one who added the "No trains in Iceland" text. It's of little consequence this time, but improperly-parsed diffs can add fuel to onrunning squabbles in some cases; it's a good idea to take care with your attribution of who said what, where, and when. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Rwessel (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No harm done! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

	The Tech Barnstar
	Thank you for work for many articles pertaining to technology.--Mr.Goblins (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

System z review

Hey, could you take a quick look at the draft System z page on my sandbox and let me know what you think? 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

TFA date fix

Thanks for that - it's 2013 and no-one told me?! Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dreadnought

North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes of Battleships are NOT Dreadnoughts. They are known as Fast Battleships: a generation of Battleship beyond Dreadnoughts. Staygyro (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is not particularly consistent. I’ve certainly heard post WW1 battle ships referred to as dreadnoughts, although the name itself was largely dropped in common usage, as approximately everything post HMS Dreadnought was, in fact, of that basic design. So the qualifier became pointless (as there were no more non-dreadnought battleships – for example Texas, from the lead photo, was almost never referred to as a dreadnought during WW2 – it was simply a “battleship”), and it was even dropped in reference to the many WW1 era battleships that survived. And of course the term itself is pretty loose – other than the “all big gun” requirement, there are exceptions to their nominal attributes even amongst ships that were commonly called such.

So we can either use “ships that were called dreadnoughts at the time they were built” or “ships that were designed according to the principles of the HMS Dreadnought” (which would then include everything up to the Iowas). The second sentence of the opening paragraph would suggest the latter, but I’m not really feeling that strongly either way. Rwessel (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

SAS Systems Vs Load Alleviation Systems

This may just be a matter of symantics. (Load-Alleviation versus Stability Augmentation). All SAS systems ARE load alleviation systems...but not all load alleviation systems are SAS systems. Reducing buffeting is exactly what a SAS does...not only dampening Dutch Roll. They also contribute to reducing structural bending. Some load alleviation systems will only reduce structural bending. The active lift distribution control system on the C-5 is an example of that. It uses aileron deflections to reduce wing bending. A good side-effect of that systems is reduced buffeting and greater stability but that was not the intent of that system. The SAS on the B-52, on the other hand, had the requirment to reduce buffeting as well as structural bending. It might legitimately be called a "load alleviation system" but all the publications, the aircrews and maintenance crews call it a SAS. Some say tomato... Anyway, I undid the changes you made because the current U.S. Air Force technical data on SAS systems defined their purpose in the same way I wrote in the article. I will add the citation in a few days or so when I get back to my office. In the meantime, I love talking about this stuff. Please feel free to engage me in conversation about autopilots and SAS systems. Sincerely, Matt aka gacman67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gacman67 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach

Regarding your comment on Bach: we ARE on the article's talk page. Did you read the comment above yours? Compare Philip Glass, and please compare not only composers but other artists (Michelangelo, Franz Kafka)? I don't see why composers should be treated differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the battery article

Hi I'm not really sure how to send messages or anything like that on Wikipedia, but I wanted to say thanks about the correction on the charge capacity of batteries that you corrected earlier. I'm kind of embarrassed because I've taken engineering courses and I'm getting a minor in physics and everything, yet I overlooked the elementary fact that cells in series do not add charge capacity. Voltage increases but capacity stays the same. I can't believe I changed that, I feel very stupid! Thanks again for the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhaycock (talk • contribs)

Just part of the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. Most regular editors use their watchlist to monitor changes to pages they've got an interest in, and that's how many problems, unintentional or otherwise, get corrected.

A user's talk page, is, in fact, the preferred method of sending messages. Alternatively you can go to the user's page, and click "Email this user" under Tools, to just send an email. Also, when you do post on a talk page (article or user), remember to sign your posts with four tilde’s, and the system will automatically substitute in your name and a link to your page, as you'll see just here: Rwessel (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rwessel. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 08:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

IVF

What do u mean when u say IVF often involves neither method mentioned? Pass a Method talk 22:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

While IVF *can* be done with donated sperm, it is far more commonly done with the woman's partner's sperm, which is not the result of a "donation". IVF is also clearly not sexual intercourse. So it's neither of those. Rwessel (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But my edit did not conflict with that did it? I did not say that ivf is only done with donations. In fact i did not mention IVF. Pass a Method talk 05:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit said "supplied the sperm through sperm donation or sexual intercourse", thus limiting the applicable type of sperm to those supplied via those two methods. IOW, with your change, a male who produced sperm for their partner during the IVF process (since that's neither a donation, or sexual intercourse), would no longer fall into any of the categories of father in the list. And without getting excessively graphic, there are obviously a variety of methods of getting sperm to an egg that involve neither of the two specific methods listed. So we'd either have to have a much longer list, make it open ended, or just stick with the simpler "supplied the sperm", which avoids all these problems. Rwessel (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The word donation actually has multiple definitions - one of which can mean "removal from one's body". So when taken broadly, my edit is grammatically correct. Check for example Google's definition in this search return. Pass a Method talk 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

But sperm donation generally does not. Rwessel (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) To expand a bit, if you've decided to make a baby with your partner, the materials are already assigned to the project – it’s not a donation. If you're helping paint your neighbor's living room because you're a nice guy, you're donating your time and effort to them. You'd never say that about someone painting their own living room. Plus, donation certainly implies a level of voluntary participation - there are certainly ways to collect sperm that are involuntary, and could not be considered a donation in any event. By contrast, if you’re giving a kidney to someone, even your wife, it’s a donation, because there’s no “normal” situation where you might do that. Rwessel (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Sperm donation" can be read as both a single term and as a sum of parts. You are choosing to read it with one exclusive definition when it does not necessarily have to be read in such an exclusive way. Pass a Method talk 09:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if we accept the more inclusive sense of donation in this context (which would not match the usage in the fertility industry), you've not addressed non-voluntary sperm "donation". And finally, I'm still not convinced your change is an improvement - how does the enumeration of specific methods of supply sperm actually make this clearer? Rwessel (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

In any event, this has now turned into a content debate, so I’m copying this discussion to Talk:Father, where it properly belongs. Rwessel (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gurdas Maan

Dear Friend, This refers to the following revision on above mentioned page :Revision as of 18:31, 28 September 2013(Rv GF edit. A photograph of a billboard doesn’t seem particularly relevant.)

Mr. Maan is a very famous singer in this region with an iconic status and cult fan following. The photograph was not of any advertisement billboard, It's a restaurant's facade, showing the resturant(called 'dhaba' in local language) owner's liking and dedication towards this legendary singer. This photo has been clicked by myself and was pasted in this article to give a slight idea the fan following of this artist in this area. Also, I'm still working on collecting material and references to update this article on English as well as local language wikis and I'll be mentioning the above justification of this image, Though It may take some time to finalise the article.

So I do hope you'll consider to revert your edit.

Thanks.--Manojkhurana (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have copied this to Talk:Gurdas Maan, where a content discussion about the article is more appropriate. Please continue the discussion there. Rwessel (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Chriv77

User:Chriv77 has made a fair number of unsourced edits, which I have discussed at the Help Desk, and then has blanked and replaced my user page. I also opened an issue at WP:AIV, which the user reverted. Rwessel (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done The user has been blocked. —Darkwind (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nastassja Kinski's filmography

Look, forgive me for not noticing that the film was not there, but I am a human being. Believe it or not, I am fallible, just like all humans. Big deal, one line entry, it happens. I understand that there is no need to add it, but there is also no need to scold me for such an error. Plus, you are wrong about the year (not that it matters). Yes it was filmed in January 1990. But if you read the Russian article, it was released the following year. Give it a break. Mistakes occur. Honestly. Oxana879 (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no intention to scold, just provide a summary and justification of my edit. I've re-read my edit summary several times, and I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as such, but I nonetheless apologize for any offense. And you'll notice I *did* acknowledge that the (former) year was incorrect, and incorporated that change into the original entry (along with the section link). Rwessel (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for informing me about the problems with some of my edits. It really helps when other editors give constructive criticism (unlike when some people just mindlessly revert). Hendrick 99 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Spelling at Hinduism

Hi Rwessel. You popped-up in my watchlist; see also User talk:Hendrick 99#Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Truncated edit summaries

Yes, as per your comment on Talk:MVS, edit summaries are limited in length; I tend to use long edit summaries, but if it's really long, a comment in the talk page, combined with a quick summary and a reference to the talk page ("see talk page" often shows up in edit summaries) is probably the best way to handle the edit. Guy Harris (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I just got surprised by Twinkle. It lets you enter a too long edit summary when you do a "rollback (AGF)", and then truncates it for you. Not necessarily the best behavior, but by the time the problem was obvious, the edit had been saved. Rwessel (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cohabitation in the United States 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?]''. The Vanier Institute of the Family, Fall 2005)</ref>
• repealing FL § 798.02<ref>[http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/798.02 FL § 798.02]</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

request about adding article titled "Event Application"

Hello I was looking for people who added and edited articles about mobile technologies, and I've found you. I'am new on wikipedia and I want to add article about Event Applications. Everytime I try to do it, I get message that my text contains promotional content. But I don't know where and which fragment are exactly promotional. Could you add the as an experienced wikipedia editor? Or review it for me?

I'll be really grateful. Anna Paluch (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I'm not an Admin, so I can't look at the deleted article, so I can't really say. If you'd like the content back, you should ask the deleting admin, or follow the alternate link left on your talk page in the entry about the deletion. Also, the deleting Admin would be the first person to ask for additional information about the deletion. In general, the policies are described at WP:PROMO and WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Remember, WP is not for advertising or promotion of an entity or product. An article about a company or product is justified only if it meets the notability guidelines, and that can be sourced from reliable secondary sources. For stuff deleted under "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", the usual issue can be summed up as the article could have been written by the entities marketing department (which would rarely manage to meet WP:Neutral point of view, and would usually have a problem with WP:Conflict of interest). If you do have a copy of the article (or get one back), and you put it up in user space or as a draft, I'd be happy to offer a comment on it. Let me know. Rwessel (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

automatic RFC links

See WP:RFCAUTO —Kenyon (t·c) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Logo

So take out the logo, not its description and context. [1]. -CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was the intention, just the execution left a bit to be desired... Rwessel (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I too am glad it is gone. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

AIM-120

Hi, the source you have for only 6 kills BVR doesn't have an official seal and is therefore likely to be a fraud. All official documents of that type have a seal. E.g. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf. The other source also copies off that one. To date 11 kills (one friendly fire) has been achieved with the AIM-120, all BVR, will 18 firings. The state of enemy RWR functionality is unknown - how would anyone know this? One source lists a J-21 kill and the other a Galeb - http://ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html, so each source missed one. The actual kill total is 11, with 19 missiles, one was a US Army Black Hawk.Z07x10 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The source *you* added says six: "The performance of the AIM-120A/B/C models in combat to date has not been spectacular... ten kills (...) of which six were genuine BVR shots...". The GAO report you link is fairly long, and I've certainly not had time to read it in its entirety, but a search for 120, AMRAAM or BVR seems to come up empty. I also see no reason to treat a seal as anything other than suggestion that the report is from a government (and certainly not an exclusive suggestion). Also, let's continue this on Talk:AIM-120 AMRAAM, where a content discussion belongs. With your permission, I'll copy this section there (or feel free to do it yourself). Rwessel (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

if,then

I hear you - mainly, I believe that as an encyclopedia, it's best to strive for accuracy over stuffiness. And since it's a technical article, I think it's appropriate under the circumstances. If it were an article about something non-technical, a somewhat more informal style would be fine. In this case, it really is describing conditionals, so I think it's clearer. And way clearer than three or four revs back. Anastrophe (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject C/C++

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Moved from inappropriate location

Ja Rule retired in 2009. It says 1994-2009 on spotify when you look up Ja Rule, -Cod101wiiowenjaquith.

user:Cod101wiiowenjaquith: As mentioned in the summary of my re-revert, he released Pain Is Love 2 in 2012, and other tracks since then. He's clearly been active since 2009.

University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine

@TeeJiem:

Hello, for the University of Hawaii John A. Burns School of Medicine Page, if a text is taken out of a public article and quoted with the reference, is that copyright. could the parts that were only copyrighted just be removed while the rest of the page revived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeJiem (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've moved this to the correct location on my talk page.

Properly attributed, and minimal, quotes from sources are allowed under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright.

An admin is capable of retrieving (most) deleted articles (I am *not* an admin, and cannot), and the most appropriate person to ask is the admin who did the delete, namely User:Huon, on their talk page: User talk:Huon. Use the "New Section" button at the top of that talk page to start a new entry. Note that the admin is not required to retrieve the article for you, the exact policies involved in that decision are out of my ken.

Given the edits you’ve made to that article, I’m also wondering if you have a conflict of interest with this article, please read the guidelines at WP:COI. Also Wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement or promotion (WP:PROMOTION). I’d also like to apologize that your first experience editing Wikipedia appears to have ended rather roughly, but copyright is taken seriously here. Rwessel (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@TeeJiem: As I explained here, I deleted the article because it was both unduly promotional and largely copy-pasted from elsewhere in violation of copyright, not just small parts and not just from a single source. I checked the page history for a clean revision, but those that disn't contain copyright violations still were extremely promotional and didn't cite any references. My suggestion would be to start over from scratch and to use the Article Wizard to write a draft that summarizes (in your own words) what reliable third-party sources have reported about the medical school. Huon (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

New Horizons

Did you revert the right revision on the New Horizons page? The change does not seem to match your description. I think you wanted to revert the revision before that one. Just checking. - DinoSlider (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@DinoSlider: yes, I got the wrong one. Thanks for fixing it. I'm either misunderstanding something Twinkle is doing, or Twinkle is doing something weird when you're not undoing all of the most recent edit(s). This has happened before. Rwessel (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Friend

Will you be my friend Breeddragon (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Really?

"covered in a magnetic storage medium" makes no sense"

Really? So the magnetic oxide coating on the plastic disk that actually stores the data makes no sense? Are you sure? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard the oxide layer referred to as the medium. The disk (or tape, or...) *with* the oxide, sure, but not the oxide. A lump of amorphous oxide would be difficult to record on. Likewise the dye or bump layer on optical media is not referred to as the medium. Rwessel (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm JustBerry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Fast inverse square root because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. JustBerry (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing warning. However, I'm not sure why this is appropriate. Would you mind explaining? Ping upon reply. --JustBerry (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

JustBerry: It's in the actual source code being shown. This was discussed at some length on the talk page (see the archive page, section 15, "Take out the F-bomb comment"). It's also been removed and reverted back in numerous times over the years ([2], [3], etc.), and there's even a warning in the prose just before the code. Basically it's a quote of the actual source code for the routine. Rwessel (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sophie, Countess of Wessex

Pleasure Se check recent edit on Sophie, Countess of Wessex page . Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: To the best of my knowledge, I've never edited that article. Is there something specific you'd like me to look at? Rwessel (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Daddy Yankee does not have an edit summary. As "Pending Changes Reviewers" we are charged with providing an Edit Summary on each revert unless it is over the top vandalism.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: I judged the (obvious?) mangling of a link/name to be (obvious) vandalism. Certatinly I don’t think there would be any question if someone had changed Programming language to Programadming language. Rwessel (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Time-related bugs

Oh, please :-) -Mardus /talk 09:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. If you want to restore that edit, please follow WP:BRD and start a discussion on Talk:Time formatting and storage bugs. Rwessel (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

SPLC Statement

Hmmmm,,,,, Chefman32084 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Chefman32084 Sorry, you'll have to be more specific than that. Rwessel (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for fixing my derp. I thought I had rejected all of those changes; apparently not... I'm not sure how I managed to do that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the reviewing interface deals well with additional changes happening during the review process, changes by multiple editors, and any attempts to approve/reject only a subset of set of changes. I've been surprised more than once by what got reverted. Rwessel (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)