Rico402

Hi Rico, I like the edits you have been making to The Dark Side of the Moon. But I think you need to check the format of your references. "Ibid." is not used at Wikipedia, because the software has a better, automated method of combining references. You do this by giving the reference a name, like this:

<ref name=dvd reference></ref>

Later, when you want to give the same reference to another piece of text, you enter:

<ref name=dvd/>

In the reference section, it looks like this:

1. ^ a b reference

where the "a" and "b" are links to the 2 places in the article. "Ibid." doesn't work because it won't make sense if someone adds more text and other references inbetween yours; the "ibids" will then seem to refer to their new references.

Also, you have more than one reference to the DVD, with different "author" names in front of them; I think you are referring to the person you are quoting, but that person is not really the "author" of the DVD, and I think the format is wrong. You should probably mention the person you are quoting in the body of the article, and only use the name of the DVD in the reference. This way, you will be able to use the one reference for all quotes.

You can find out more about reference formatting here (but it's a long read, and actual examples are mostly split off into other help articles): WP:REF

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support. Last night I changed all 3 renames that I was objecting to, back to their previous names. No brouhaha so far. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. There are still many articles that call him Rick (these are old edits); tonight I changed some of them, but I think I will stop for now, probably continue this later. There is at least one older album where he is called Rick in the credits, so I'm not disputing he has been called that on occasion, but since he uses Richard professionally most of the time, and it's the name he used on his solo album, I think that name should be used everywhere for consistencey, except of course for quotes and news article titles; we have to leave those as is, even when they call the band "The Floyd". I also notice a lot of articles badly need fixing, where songwriter credits are improperly formatted. Some articles have wikilinked names repeated over and over; more stuff to fix another day. I remember you told me about the Edward Van Halen thing before! I would support an effort to change it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Van Halen, the page must be moved, not copied / pasted, in order to retain its edit history; this is a Wikipedia requirement. I put a notice on the talk page asking if there are any last minute objections, so we should wait before attempting again. When we're ready, try using the "move" tab at the top of the article. If it doesn't work (and it may not, since the redirect page has been edited by several people), we may have to request an administrator to do it. This is done at this page: WP:RM. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip. Yeah, I realized after I had renamed the page that it was gonna screw with the links to and from the page. I was a little freaked and went right to my watchlist to "undo". I guess bots would have fixed it, but was relieved to get out without looking too wikignorant. (Bots did fix the redirect edits before I got to them.) Rico402 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see, the Edward Van Halen redirect page was not edited. It's been 24 hours; want to give it another go? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not knowledgeable enough nor of a frame of mind at present to attempt it myself, but please, be my guest; you have my full support. Rico402 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just as I predicted, it can't be moved because of the disambiguation page. I have made a request at Move Requests (see link above). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a current or past contributor to a Pitt-related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Pittsburgh and the Pitt Panthers. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rico402, thank you for your corrections in the UPJ article. Because of your possible interest in topics related to the University of Pittsburgh I'd like to invite you to join the Pitt WikiProject. One of our more recent points of emphasis is to improve the articles on Pitt's regional campuses. Any help with these or other topics is greatly appreciated! CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rico,

I was delighted to read your firm response to Celebration1981 on Britannica...until I got to "If you had attended university you would know that. As usual, you know not of what you write." He's not even pretending to attempt to follow NPOV guidelines, he's not staying anywhere near on-topic, but if we are going to get anywhere with him (which might not be possible), we have to be the ones who are staying clean, so that if we ask for a third-party review, it's clear who's being reasonable and who is not. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. And I have been appropriately reprimanded. Shame on me for letting emotion get in the way of informative discourse. Many apologies from me for not holding to a "polite" tone. No hard feelings I hope. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: I think you'll find the next post more appropriately worded; I was careful not to inject any venom. Rico402 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, very much so, thanks!Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I encountered Celebration1981 at the Electric motor article, where he insists that Jedlik (of Hungary) invented the electric motor and the electric car in 1828. His edits have been in the same style as at the article you have been maintaining. Nationalistic claims are jammed into Wikipedia which give credit not found in other encyclopedias or in reliable histories of the field. Good editors can be worn down by the constant insertion of references which cannot be verified. Please take a look at Electric motor. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've seen what he's been doing over there. The BIG problem I've had with him is on the History of Television. He maintains that Kálmán Tihanyi is the "sole" and "official" inventor of electronic TV. His Talk page comments are just outrageous. Now he's up to similar tricks with regard to the Electric motor and Transformer pages. Time I could use improving articles is constantly squandered correcting his edits or trying to talk some sense into him on the Talk pages. At this point I don't know else what to do except compile a list of violations (which I've begun) and report him to an admin. Rico402 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I've been looking for a reference for the Fricke quote here. I've watched the documentary and didn't note him saying exactly that (although I may have missed it). Can you remember, did his quote actually come from that documentary, or somewhere else? Its on YouTube if you don't have it to hand.

I'm thinking of having a stab at FAC for this article, and need to clear this up. Any help would be appreciated. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah never mind, I just watched it again and Fricke does indeed say words to that effect. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's OK. If it's any help, my contribution to the of 3 Aug. 2008 edit (which I saved) reads:

The Dark Side of the Moon builds upon previous experimentation that Pink Floyd had explored in their live shows and recordings, but without the extended instrumental excursions that according to critic David Fricke had become characteristic of the band after founding member Syd Barrett left in 1968 — what guitarist David Gilmour, Barrett's replacement, would later refer to as "that psychedelic noodling stuff." Gilmour and Roger Waters, the band's bassist and principal lyricist, cite 1971's Meddle as a turning point toward what would be realized on The Dark Side of the Moon. The album's themes include conflict, greed, aging and mental illness (or "insanity"); the latter inspired in part by the deteriorating mental state of Barrett, who had been the band's principal composer and lyricist.^[1]

One of the things Fricke had said was that after Syd died, the Floyd "went glacial; they just spread out." (And I guess went into a bit more explanation.) He also discussed seeing their pre-Meddle live show. So that's where "previous experimentation that Pink Floyd had explored in their live shows and recordings", and "the extended instrumental excursions" bits comes from. I double checked this at the time, and went back and made corrections; this is the "double checked" (updated) edit.

The "(or 'insanity')" bit comes from someone else; no one actually uses the word in the documentary. ("After Syd had gone insane, ...", Waters says at one point.) I believe it had read, "The album's themes include ... and insanity", and I was loathe to take it out entirely at the time because there had been an ongoing fuss about the "insanity" theme on the Talk page. I changed it to "mental illness", and put "insanity" in parenthesis as if to say, "mental illness (i.e., insanity)".

Nice to see the article is getting updated with properly referenced content — there was so much unsourced & POV baloney in the article, I put off trying to mend it (and I didn't have ready access to reliable source material). Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying (there was a little bit of a fuss about removing the content you mention, see the talk archive). Happily though its been resolved. I still have some issues with the certifications, I don't think some of the sources would pass FAC so I may simply have to remove them - some aren't that notable anyway, such as Scandanavian chart positions, or Austrian and Polish album sales. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, editors of articles related to popular music often run a muck with specious claims re sales, chart positions and who's "most popular" (whatever the heck that means). That's why I now generally stay away from those pages. It seems everyone has his POV, and by golly he's gonna stick to it. Good luck, Rico402 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm nominating it at WP:FAC now. Wish me luck :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

LUCK!! :D, Rico402 (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the message on my talk page. As per the IP blocking rules, IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely. Additionally since Celebration1981 (talk · contribs) was blocked 55 days ago, and this is the only edit ever made by 94.44.12.90 (talk · contribs), I suspect that Celebration1981 is on a highly dynamic network that makes it very easy for him or her to change IP addresses. As such, any block with a duration longer than the one I set is unlikely to stop Celebration, and instead risks collateral damage. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be of service! Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. — Kralizec! (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is useless to slap an "original research" page without identifying what you think is original research. I am the one who originally created that article, and all the material I used is clearly cited with proper references at the bottom.

If you can't clarify what you think is original research I will be removing your added tag, since it offers no guidance as to what you don't like about the article. DMahalko (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The image at top right, the introduction (which contains material not found elsewhere in the article), and sections 1) Description, and 2) Invention of modern electric motor, contain no references, hence the tag: "This article may contain original research or unverified claims."

Furthermore, citing sources in the section headings, as you've done in sections 3 & 4, is entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with Wiki guidelines. (A citation at the end of the closing sentence of a section is fine. In Wiki articles, standard practice is for the citation to follow the text it refers to.)

As the author, it is your responsibility to properly reference your work, otherwise "Original research" or other tags are entirely appropriate. The preferred method is with "inline citations" (a different tag applies to material lacking such citations).

See Wikipedia:Citing sources and other relevant Wiki articles for starters, but best to review other articles to become familiar with proper methods of citing references (for ex., any of Wiki's "featured articles").

I've properly formatted and inserted the refs you partially provided for sections 3 & 4, and their included images. (Wow, that's a long book title!!) I've also added captions to images where they were lacking. The image at the top of the page, and sections 1 & 2 still require attention.

Finally, I would gently advise you not to allow yourself to become insulted or distraught over others editing or adding tags to your work. That's the way it's supposed be around here. Cheers!, Rico402 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Rico402.

I just got a copy of the paper entitled: Television by Electron Image Scanning published by Philo Taylor Farnsworth on October 1934 in the Journal of the Franklin Institute. I wonder your would want to have a copy, so do you have then a blog where I can upload a copy?.

Best wishes: --189.217.3.248 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly a better spelled opening paragraph. I wish Explorer had the spell-check that Firefox does. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rico402, I have tried to revise the article on machines so that it is useful to my undergraduate students, but I am having trouble with editors who do not like direct references to mechanical devices. I have tried to moderate the language to address their concerns but it is difficult. It may help if you would take a look. Thank you, Prof. McCarthy Prof McCarthy (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

I've restored the italics on Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, at least for the time being. The manual of style is silent on the use of italics in the specific case of spacecraft, though it does recommend italics for "named vehicles" (explicitly noting ships and, oddly, trains).

I remember there being some discussions on this in the past, though I can't seem to track them down; from a quick spotcheck of various other Shuttle-related articles, it seems that italicising named spacecraft is the de facto standard through the topic. In the absence of a firm guide one way or the other, it seems best to be consistent... Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The "Manual of style" is very specific on which "named vehicles" the use of italics applies, and the list does not include spacecraft. It's unfortunate that Wiki can't abide by -- or even update -- it's own guidelines.

Googled: "space shuttle". Out of the first 100 returns, only Wiki shows italicized type for the space shuttles.

Googled: "space shuttle" site:nasa.gov. NASA does not use italicized type when referring to its spacecraft.

The Planetary Society (planetary.org) does not use italicized type when referring to spacecraft.

Neither The New York Times nor The Washington Post use italicized type when referring to spacecraft.

On the other hand, I've made ample use of italicized type here. :)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's an interesting point. I've tended to read the style guide entry as indicative ("things like this") rather than restrictive ("only these"). If we do consistently use italics for spacecraft, this should be standardised there, or else explicitly deprecated throughout. I've left a note at the relevant project discussion page to hopefully drum up a bit of discussion on the topic. Shimgray | talk | 21:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry for the delay, busy week...)

But it is restrictive, at least in reference to some things. Under "Certain scientific names" we see "Genera and all lower taxa (but not higher taxa)" and "Genes (but not proteins encoded by genes)". Here the guidelines are following the conventions used in biology. The question I guess is what are the agreed-upon conventions with regard to vehicles other than ships and trains, but there doesn't seem to be any.

I have two writing handbooks on the shelf from my college days. As far as using italic type for "named vehicles", one cites only ships and trains (Practical English Handbook, 6th Ed., Houghton Mifflin, 1982), the other drops trains but adds aircraft, spacecraft and satellites (Harbrace College Handbook, 10th Ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986). Personally, I'm for using italic type for all "named vehicles", which I now find myself agreeing that that seems to be the intent of Wiki's guidelines, regardless of how specific they are. (I just like it for aesthetics; I'm not gonna take a firm position either way.)

Thanks for leaving the note on the discussion page; maybe we'll get some updated guidelines. No need to reply unless you have more to add; we all have better things to do. :)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In The Real Eve, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page British (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leyden jar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resistance (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) 11:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inerting system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transport aircraft (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) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit and your request in the edit summary, math markup can be made smaller with

<math> \scriptstyle I</math>

which gets you ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle I}$ . However, using <math> tags in the text body, as you did, is discouraged nowadays because screen readers cannot deal with them so it causes an accessibility issue. HTML is always preferred in the body of the text. You can change the font like this;

<span style="font-family:serif;">''I''</span>

which get you I. A bit convoluted but gets the result you want. Also, {{serif}} does the same thing. SpinningSpark 18:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Spinningspark. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counter-electromotive force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current (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) 11:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electromotive force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I reverted you at Morgan Smith (actress). IMDb fails WP:SPS and is not allowable as a source, especially not on a BLP. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply