User talk:Rmky87

	Archives
	Archive 1 February 3, 2007

This user may have left Wikipedia. Rmky87 has not edited Wikipedia since 26 September 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Clairify for me, how a history of produced plays is a copyright violation?

or do you just enjoy removing information from pages people are actively working on?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CSTV (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New York Knickerbockers

Good day, I noticed that you removed the {cleanup} tag from the said article. That's not the reason I am invading your talk page, rather it's the article and the Knickerbocker Rules article. The rules themselves are elaborated upon in a separate article, so I was thinking, maybe they could be wholly left out of the article on the Knickerbockers, and the article on the rules could be expanded? Just a thought. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great idea.--Rmky87 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I do not have any time to reasonably do this, as I am exceedingly busy in real life, but I will be happy to take care of these articles next week. However, if You want to have a go, please do. Cheers. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demotions

I am curious as to why you are going around Wikipedia changing the quality ratings of so many articles? I personally think you should reach some sort of consensus before doing this, as it could anger many people if you continue. LWF 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing this after noticing that some of the FFAs V.05 ratings of Featured, which isn't right. I've been doing this to the ones that are from the former featured articles page. I've been going by what the FARs and the failed A-class reviews say. You should also notice that I've been doing it to articles that were rated B-class by someone who didn't go through the checklist. I'm glad it's there to show people that B-class doesn't just mean that you have a really long article that doesn't meet WP:WIAGA (which is honestly what I used to think). I hope that clears things up.--Rmky87 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timely reply. I'm glad there is a reason, and it isn't just random. Thank you again for your time. LWF 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!--Rmky87 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Collaboration of the Week

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Hysterectomy was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurs e _work 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your kind comments about my work on Quatermass II on its talk page, when passing it as a Good Article. Thanks! Angmering 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Rmky87 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your request on my talk page. I don't think I can, I'm afraid — I'm very sorry, but a) CFD is just not something I've ever had anything to do with, and it would look and bit odd if I suddenly popped up there with these, and b) it's really nothing to do with me. I think such things should be dealt with by those who know what they're doing on the admin side of Wikipedia — I'm afraid that generally speaking, aside from the odd push towards a Good or Featued article, it's something I pretty much stay away from. Sorry. Angmering 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on TV tables

Hi Rmky87,

I see that you've been updating the tables at WP1.0 recently. I wanted to make sure that you know about the bot-generated tables at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Television articles by quality and elsewhere. Where these is a bot generated table, we will use this first for our article selection since it is likely to be the most up-to-date. At this point, we'll mostly be using the manually generated tables when there is no bot table available.

I added a little bit to the WP:TV page to make sure people are aware of this; I think article talk pages can have assessments added at any time.

Thanks for keeping us up to date, and for your assessment work! Walkerma 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Rmky87 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Hi again! I noticed that you've re-assessed quite a few articles recently, and some such as Plato and sulfuric acid are marked as "Start". Which WikiProject's criteria are you using to assess these? I know that the WP:Chem definition of B-Class doesn't require references, indeed some tagged by the project as B have no refs at all, yet you marked this as "Start" on the basis of references. Are there specific topics that are missing from the sulfuric acid article? (Note that WP:Chem actually invented the assessment scheme!) I'm aware that some projects such as WP:MILHIST use tighter criteria, but many don't.

Also, you might be interested in helping us with a new direction at a 1.0 project, WP:WVWP, which is designed to get unassessed articles assessed and tagged. We're focusing on articles that have no parent WikiProject (so none of the above worries!), and looking at some of the more important topics first. We're using these guidelines. Would you be interested in helping with this? We'd appreciate your energy! Thanks, Walkerma 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments II

Hi, thank you for taking the time to assess a number of articles within WikiProject Abortion! I disagreed with you on two assessments, though, History of abortion and Beginning of pregnancy controversy. "History..." has more in common with articles in Category:B-Class Abortion articles than it does with Category:Start-Class Abortion articles, and, I feel, the level of sourcing is far ahead of that in other abortion-related articles; "Beginning...", I feel, has some unresolved OR issues that need to be taken into account. Hope you don't mind. -Severa (!!!) 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Christie

Thanks for tagging the Joanna Christie page properly. I'm still feeling my way with Wikipedia, so your help is much appreciated. Gringotsgoblin 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Gringotsgoblin[reply]

Oklahoma City bombing

Just a few questions about you removing the peerreview tag on the article. How is the article peer review over? I have only received a response from the bot. Is there a time limit on the peer review? --Nehrams2020 08:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last response is dated February 19; the GAnominee tag has been up since February 25.--Rmky87 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Board Game

Hi, are you happy with the URL changes we made to the page? If not let us know. Thanks, --ZincBelief 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why you revert the explanation of original meaning of go game that just added ;-) --Jarodtang

Because the prose was poor.--Rmky87 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Chinese who practice go game for 15 years, and found many westerners weird about the "go" game, it's reasonable to explain the meaning of the original game name , isnt it?. And I also found that after the explain, the western guys get better understanding about the game faster ;).--Jarodtang —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments III

Thanks for takign the time to assess WikiProject EastEnders] articles! Just out of interest, why have you rated Angie Watts as "Start" and Pete Beale as "B"? What is the major difference? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beale has a citation after almost every paragraph. I was going by the MILHIST criteria.--Rmky87 17:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that you did this and also wanted to say thanks - I think the members of the EastEnders project (myself included) have been lazy in assessing the articles! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Rmky87 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's March also on my calendar

However, I just 'moved' the maintenace tags from Simon Young to its 'children' (first time that I saw such a double person page) and left also the date at February. Anyway, it doesn't matter as long as the tags help...Ciao. Tikiwont 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Firefly

Oh, Rmky87, I am really really sorry, I should've done that, and if I could do it over, I wouldn't do it.. Again, I apologize, and in the future I will not do that, please forgive me (not being sarcastic).. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm glad :) .. Oh, also, I set up Firefly Reception and Firefly Production for deletion, since no pages link to them.. Again, I apologize, I should've used the talk page.. Anyway, I'm happy that both of us were able to settle this :) .. Have a nice day.. Oh, also, I'm starting a topic on the Firefly talk page, I suggest you check it out when I start it.. Thanks, and I hope that we run into each other again sometime.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi, Rmky87! Thanks for reviewing Vitamin C; I've main the changes you suggested...is that all it needed for promotion? — Jack · talk · 19:57, Friday, 9 March 2007

Lawyer GA on hold

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Pharmacopeia

Thanks for the wikification. Ddruk 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho and others

Thanks for the pointer. I don't know what you thought might possibly be insulting about it. You have underscored one fact for me--doing a proper article on low-budget commercial cinema will really require people with familiarity in all these little genres from around the world, like the one you've raised here. There's so much to learn.—DCGeist 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What on earth is this supposed to mean?

I would be interested in learning what standards they applied in forming their claim that the anticonvulsants in question were administered at "average dose levels". They were probably radically different, depending on the needs of the patient. This is a relatively small population, too. But, nonetheless, it does seem to prove that certain anticonvulsants have a significant pharmacological interaction with glucaric acid (all of the anticonvulsants mentioned, except valproate, increased levels of some unspecified enzyme, which had the effect of incresing glucaric acid excretion). However, there is no page for glucaric acid, and the closest article is about a broad class of sugar acids (discussed on the page Aldaric acid). I am unsure of any medical (or other) uses of these compounds, so I really wonder what the point of this study was. Fuzzform 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew

That other image is not a screenshot. It's a promotional photo released by ABC for the second season episode "I Know Things Now." [1] --DrBat 20:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ibid

Thanks for the advice - I had already noticed that when I was creating & editing the article... don't know why I didn't just remove them all then! I'll insert the full references asap. EyeSerene^TALK 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Rmky87 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review closings

Hey, Rmky87, just wanted to leave you a note to review the discussion on Marskell's page; when editors update the articlehistory on fac and far closings, it makes for extra work for the bot operator. If a FAC or FAR hasn't been closed, you can leave a note on Gimmetrow's talk page. Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton

GA-level articles should be set to B-level, as GA is not a level on the Chemistry assessment scale, nor are GAs tracked by Wikibot 1.0. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Frances (2004) article

See if it looks B class now. Thegreatdr 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for X-ray crystallography and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big O: second peer review

The Big O is going through a second peer review. The purpose of the review is to learn what's needed for it to become a featured article. Your input is welcomed.--Nohansen 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for Nuclear magnetic resonance and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 19:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request help, ABA article

I'm assuming that you're the friend Kassiane told me about. I am wondering if you could help me with an edit war I'm currently in. I am attempting to make sure that the Applied behavior analysis article includes criticism however two practitioners are attempting to revert all critical edits. I could use any and all assistance you would be able to give. Thank you.--Ensrifraff 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me their names? I want to know who to revert.--Rmky87 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your cpedits to Western Ganga Dynasty and Western Chalukya literature where I had by mistake removed a few citations.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) You're welcome.--Rmky87 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka

Sir, currently this article is undergoing copy edits to promote it to Peer review. The intent of removing citations was that the citations exist in the subarticles and as per wiki rules, the same citations do not have to appear on the main article also. User:Gnanapiti has been working hard to make the size of the article acceptable for PR and FAC. There is nothing wrong in what he is doing. We are all a part of the Karnataka work group who have been working on this article for about 2 months to make it a FA. There is NO foul play here. thank you.Dineshkannambadi 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rmky87:Thank you for your revert in Karnataka article. In the end, that helped much. I actually reverted your edit, assuming you thought User:Gnanapiti removed all those references unilaterally. However, after seeing your message in User:Dineshkannambadi's talk page, I realized that there are few broken links. In fact there were several (four, to be specific). :-)

I have corrected all of them, and have re-inserted the missing references back. Thank you again! - KNM ^Talk 01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for partaking in my effort to have a listing of stable article revisions. How do you suggest we get this project off the ground? (messedrocker • talk) 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be featured, they just need to cite their sources, be accurate, free of bias, and free of original research. (messedrocker • talk) 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've become old. (messedrocker • talk) 16:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions should be as recent as possible and they should follow the requirements. (messedrocker • talk) 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this fit in somewhere? (plus my reply)

My article-writing skills aren't the best right now and I don't often know which bits of information really matter and I'm wondering about this:

Relationship of Parent and Child Informants to Prevalence of Mania Symptoms in Children With a Prepubertal and Early Adolescent Bipolar Disorder Phenotype

It basically says that children do become euphoric while manic and that those studies didn't find that should have asked the children instead of just their parents.--Rmky87 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as far as the article goes itself I agree it is very sensible to include children's POV in assessing mental state. However, bipolar disorder in children is very rare and the fact that it has such as significant section in the Bipolar Disorder article is one I'm not sure how to address. After taking a good look at the article there is a large amount of material which is going to be a headache to reorganize. Given the length of the article if you want to stick it in as a one-liner should be ok but it isn't earth-shattering. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, I'm using a shortcut work in the past, but I gues that was just for FA, GA and GAC. Gran² 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I want to send you a private message, but you don't have an e-mail address registered with your Wikipedia account. How could I contact you? MessedRocker (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Preferences and set an e-mail address. MessedRocker (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of AFD for Harjinder Singh Khurana

I have put Harjinder Singh Khurana up on Articles for deletion. Since you have contributed to the article you may wish to comment at the discussion--Cailil ^talk 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: French primidone article

I might be able to find it at one of the several university or public libraries in the area. My guess is that the Harvard libraries have access to it, and perhaps also the BPL (these are 2 of the 3 largest libraries in the country; one of the many perquisites of Boston). I'm bogged down in work at the moment, but I'll certainly help you locate it as soon as I have a free moment. Fuzzform 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: history section of the primidone article

This is by far the longest history section I have ever seen in any drug-related article; quite an interesting progression of opinions regarding the best drugs for epilepsy. However, some of the information seems to belong in an article concerning the history of drug treatments for epilepsy, rather than in the primidone article. The information about other drugs manufactured by the same company that manufactures primidone is a bit tangental (though it does serve to illustrate why the drug fell out of mainstream use). I'm not sure where you'd move this kind of information, though.

Quite amazing, by the way, how far you've brought this article since its creation a couple years ago. Fuzzform 00:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Chinese primidone article

Hmm... I do have a friend who speaks Mandarin fluently, but I'm not sure whether or not she could read a scientific article. I'll certainly ask, next time I see her. (But, even then, would her translation be a valid source?) As for favors in general... I feel that they ultimately benefit everyone who uses Wikipedia, so feel free to ask me anytime (though I may not get to everything in a very timely manner). Fuzzform 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles requested

A preliminary search has uncovered one of the articles[2] you requested. The others will be more of a challange, but I'll keep looking. Send me a wikipedia email with your address, and I'll send you the pdf. Fuzzform 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the toolbox on the lower left. Fuzzform 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's right under the search box. You have to be on my main user page, then it should appear right below the "contributions" and "log" options. Fuzzform 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Vique Simba

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vique Simba, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simba Recordings. Thank you. Optigan13 07:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Regarding Denis Williams 1956

Yes, all of the information presented in this paper would be considered open-label. I would hardly call it a "study" or a "trial", since it doesn't include control groups of any kind (that would be unethical in the context of outpatient treatment). This would better be described as a collection of case studies. It might be citable, in some way, in the phenobarbital article, though certain statements are clearly outdated (e.g. phenobarbital is no longer a first line treatment for epilepsy). Fuzzform 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primidone approval

I'm not able to read the German article. The first article says it "has been used since 1950" and that 1952 was the first clinical trial. This seems quite consistent with the Epilepsy Action source that it was approved in 1952, which would seem to be unlikely before any clinical trials. The anticonvulsant article lists first approved usage rather than first experimental or first clinical usage. The latter dates would be rather hard to source without detailed a drug development history. Do you think the dates in anticonvulsant are wrong?

Your Primidone article is clearly a labour of love. I've enjoyed reading some of your sources too. Quite shocking the number of highly toxic drugs that were launched and then quietly forgotten. Colin°^Talk 20:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rmky87. Saw your note on User talk:Awadewit (nothing escapes your attention? :-) and reply on my talk page (I assume you were the IP). You are better informed wrt anticonvulsants than I am. I think your 1950 date could well be right (the source is ambiguous) and I wouldn't revert you if you changed anticonvulsant to use that date with your source. History always involves a big of guesswork.

I assume from your work that pharmacy is your speciality and anticonvulsants a particular interest. Is this an area you'd like to help with on epilepsy as editor/reviewer/fact-checker/whatever? DO11.10 has offered to look into the "Mechanism" section, which has an overlap with how anticonvulsants work. Perhaps you can work together to come up with a lay-reader-friendly explanation, because it certainly makes my head hurt. Colin°^Talk 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If beautiful lay-reader-friendly prose isn't your strong point, I'm sure there are other ways you could help if you want to. For example, as a reviewer, or to suggest some good sources. See you around wiki. Colin°^Talk 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs

Can you look at my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Suicidality and Antiepileptic Drugs. I think you might be able to help. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Hydantoins

A tag has been placed on Template:Hydantoins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:GABA analogs

A tag has been placed on Template:GABA analogs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.