User talk:Rrburke/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

A barnstar for you!

	Move to Commons Barnstar
	Moving files from En.Wikipedia to Commons is a tedious task. For your hard work in moving quality images to Commons and for your long term dedication to the project, I hereby award you this Move to Commons Barnstar. Thanks for your work and keep it up! TLSuda (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, TLSuda. Thanks for that! You're right: it gets a little tedious. But some of these images are the only ones we have of these species on any project, so I'm happy to be able to move them where everyone can use them. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Damn, you're quick.

It's cool though, I got my screenshot :3 71.114.76.72 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please protect WZ-10 page from Pvpoodle

Hello Rrburke, I am Jon, the original contributor to the WZ-10 attack helicopter page, recently the page has came under attack by Pvpoodle. He repeatedly edited the page using his own personal opinions and old sources which came from western news media, he claimed that they are multiple sources but they are not, they all contain the same materials and were all written from March,7th, 2013 to March, 8th, 2013. Just three month after the Chinese first officially revealed the WZ-10 to the general public. The sources he posted have since then been debunked by Chinese and Russian news media and Kamov's chief designer have recanted his words, yet Pvpoodle keep trying to push it through. Another user named Shulinjiang attempted to debunk Pvpoodle's relentless acts by providing more update Chinese and Russian sources. Yet Pvpoodle did not stop. He keep posting destructive and derogatory comments and even attempt to change the page's chief designer whom was indeed Wu Xingming to Kamov! The page has become a personal battle ground for Pvpoodle.

I have spoke to The_Last_Arietta a Wikipedian about this issue and he allowed me to revert Pvpoddle's destructive eddits but he is not an admin. I really suspect that once Pvpoodle is unbanned, he will return again to keep editing Wikipedia pages in his own way without any regard to truth or not. He has shown a personal pattern of doing so in the past and was proven on the "2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish" page. It was literally his own battle ground.

I am the original contributor on the WZ-10 page, having spend hours if not days making constructive materials and you can see that the page was well written and described in details, backed up with more creditable Chinese sources and even pictures. I did this not for any reward but just for the better good of Wikipedia. Please, if you can protect the WZ-10 page from Pvpoodle ever making disruptive edits again. It will be much appreciated.

Thank you

64.134.160.102 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jon. I don't have any power to protect the page. Moreover, it doesn't appear to me that Pvpoodle is "attacking" the page: it looks like you and he are involved in a content dispute. Content disputes are best resolved by the parties interacting directly, attempting to forge a consensus about what should be included and/or excluded. You should begin by trying to discuss that matter on the article's talk page. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

this guy not an original contributor to the article. edit history reveals no one by the name jon. he links he provides to "debunk my claims" are actually chinese versions of the same news reports i have cited. the chief designer has not actually recanted anything. he mentioned that kamov was involved in the design and to quote him directly "I know what I have done" from flightglobal. both the news report and the wiki article on z-10 both mention clearly that while the design is kamov's all further development work is chinese. i believe this preserves npov as it is only mentioning the news. however the same user has been sock puppetting with multiple ips and adding whatever he pleases and removing sourced infomation without any explanation or without any valid reference in an attempt to spread his own propaganda while making ad-hominem attacks against me personally. he does not discuss anything on talk, however edits others content to make it look like they are saying something else on talk. you may wish to check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shulinjiang and help me stop this vandalism. thank you Pvpoodle (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Pvpoodle. I'm not sure I see vandalism here so much as a content dispute/edit war, and a rather confusing one at that: if the Chinese versions of the sources say the same thing, what is the user contesting? And if he is socking, he is doing a rather poor job of it: his response to your SPI was submitted from one of the IPs in the report, which tends to suggest he isn't trying to conceal his identity, a requirement for behaviour to be considered socking. I presume IP user 64.134.160.102 is this same editor -- I note many of the same challenges with English -- but unless it's clear he's using multiple IPs to evade detection, it's hard to see this as a clear-cut case for socking.

But as to your main point, namely that both the English and Chinese sources say the initial design was by Kamov but the aircraft was developed by China: well, if that's indeed what they both say, I don't see anything contentious about adding it to the page. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

the guy is trying to use wiki as his personal propaganda outlet but contesting the fact that kamov designed the helicopter despite both english and chinese sources stating it. it appears he is trying to compartmentalize his accounts by creating unique identities for his ip as a measure of avoiding sock puppeting ban. take for instance that he gives his name as jon in an attempt to evoke a personal rapport with you and other editors he has been contacting. however no one called jon has been an original contributor to the article as evidenced by the edit logs. anyways he is back now on Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122 and vandalizing pages i have been editing by reverting my edits on multiple pages. Pvpoodle (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pvpoodle was banned for 3 days and just got unbanned 2 hours ago, and now he is back at it again. The Chinese source did not say that WZ-10 was designed by Kamov, rather it is debunking it. The title clearly said that. China designed every part of the WZ-10, from engine to weapons to avonics to rotor blades, even the glass and auto cannons. The only evidence Kamov and other western news media have is a picture drew in 2013 with English subtitles, yet Pvpoodle call it muti sources and that was enough for him to push his own personal words through!!

     Pvpoofle was banned twice in just 4 month and he never learn from them. He got banned for edditing wars! He also try tp apeal the ban but was REJECTED!! By two admins, the admins basically tell him to pound sand, that he was indeed editting warring! He just came back and started this all over again!
     One of the admin who banned him and supported the ban, rejected his request for unbann told Pvpoodle: "You are banned for editing warring, the page has become your own personal battle ground!"

     Now look at it!! Who is trying to spread his personal propaganda?????

198.135.125.122 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

im sorry that he has brought his personal fight to your talk page. my block was on a different page and i had worked out the nuances of the differences i had with the other editor and we had almost come to a agreement at the time of the block. however this is irrelevant. with regards to your earlier question of sock puppetting, here is a diff from this ip, Special:Diff/615963931 where he mentions having talked to other Wikipedians and them having given him permission. however it was the ip Special:Contributions/64.134.160.102 under the pseudonym jon who had gone around asking for permission / help from different editors including yourself, like for instance this editor who gives him "permission" - User_talk:The_Last_Arietta#CAIC_Z-10, i feel he has muddled up his ip identities in his haste to disrupt my edits. i am sorry to drag you into this, but i would appreciate it if you could comment on the SPI and also if you could revert his vandalism as i still see many pages listed as current on Special:Contributions/198.135.125.122. i dont want to do it myself since any edits by me is only going to provoke him further into vandalizing further pages. thanks and regards. Pvpoodle (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Message😠

Excuse me, but how is my construction to the Autocorrect page vandalism? I added some information on how the autocorrect messes you up. How is that vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethNyeTheScienceGal (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am the owner of the website Marccar.com this is my bio and i am allow permission to post the information. Much of the up to date info is missing from the current page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSage98 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, the last fact i made was actually a fact and the guy didn't put enough information on. I will recommend that you re-do my info back onto the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.239.73 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Filipe Luis IS NOT a Chelsea player yet!!!! So change him back to Athletico Madrid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.54.212 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wilbur Young

I recommend that you google news about Wilbur Young's death. A number of newspapers carried stories about his passing. Wilbur was a good friend of mine, and we were friends for 53 years. One or more of the professional football teams he played for also published news of his passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.46.138 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry to hear your friend died. I didn't intend any disrespect; at the time you edited the page back in July I couldn't find any news stories to support the change you made, and all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable -- especially information about a living person or someone who has recently died.

It appears someone has now added a reference to a news story confirming that Mr. Young died, so there's nothing that needs doing now. Again, I'm sorry for your loss of your friend. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

My edit summary said talk page where the explanation is. Don't give wrong warnings. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

STOP giving me wrong warnings I am using an edit summary. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think that Baratunde Thurston edit was correct. Here’s proof: https://twitter.com/onthehorn500/status/510075292980097024. Please reinstate my edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.155.150 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Strickland is shown drinking whiskey "on the sly" in the Back To The Future, Part 2 movie

Dear Sir/Madam, Gerald Strickland is a fictional character from the Back to the Future series. In BTTF2, he rails at Biff about his woeful lack of respectful/responsible attitude and the evils of drinking alcohol, but then a few minutes later, Mr. Strickland himself is seen surreptitiously sipping large swallows of whiskey from a secret bottle he keeps in his desk. I was just mentioning this fact in my edit about him. Mr. Strickland is not a living person, either; again, he is just a character in the movie. Sincerely, Fred Seaborne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.81.29 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adolph Alexander Weinman 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:

• ], and the since-demolished [Pennsylvania_Station_(1910–1963)|Pennsylvania Railway Station]], all in [[New York City]]. A photograph of one of his angels, "Day," in a landfill in New Jersey

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Antal E. Fekete for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antal E. Fekete is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antal E. Fekete until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melt core (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TRESemmé

Hello, i just recently edited a wiki article about Amy Wallace. She is in fact ALIVE! Shocker, yes, but I am actually in a class she is teaching right this second and unless I'm dealing with some sort of zombie, though some might believe that, I think the odds are not very high in that theory.. So YEP. PLOT TWIST. SHE DIDN'T DIE. - Hi apologies for any mistakes I may have made. Can I just clarify, what do you mean by "advertising copy"?----Syra Sanghera (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Syra. No need to apologize: this is a wiki :) Advertising copy is material written for the purpose of advertising and promotion; there's more information at the article Copywriting. Promotional material and ads aren't suitable sources for Wikipedia articles, which should be based on reliable third-party sources. Have a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars for information about the encyclopedia. If you need more help, you can contact me here. I'm happy to help. ---- Rrburke (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm new :) Would you be able to tell me which part of my edits were advertising copy so I can take these out and start over? Thank for your help by the way.----Syra Sanghera (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider havign a look at Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Avoid direct quotations of advertising or promotional material. Avoid what we call "peacock words" (see WP:PEACOCK) like "innovative" etc, that sound like they come from the company's ad department. Anything that sounds like an ad should be avoided. The article should be based on third-party sources, not the company's promotional material. ---- Rrburke (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay I think I understand. Thank you! Would I be able to get the article back to how I left it to edit it or will I need to start again?----Syra Sanghera (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

'David Morris Conservative Politician'''''''Bold text'

Hi, I am sorry but I am not computer literal, but the name used on David Morris page of Pierre Alexandre leads to a totally different Pierre Alexandre in New York, I am the hairdresser Pierre Alexandre where David Morris worked which is correct, I am in the process to write my own Wikipedia page, and wanted to connect the right Pierre Alexandre on David Morris page? So sorry if I made a mistake in editing this page, maybe you can help me writing mine, Best regards Pierre Alexandre Pierre Alexandre Hairdresser (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agency Insight

hello, thanks for your comment relating to the editing of draft page Agency Insight. I have added commentary to the edits as suggested. Hopefully I have done this correctly...The edits were mainly done to neutralize the page so that the it didn't look like it contained advertising copy. I also hyperlinked some text so it linked through to other Wikipedia pages. I have written this in an edit summary. If you have any other recommendations I would really appreciate any help or comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siginsight (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there -- and welcome to Wikipedia. My comment was actually an error, but I'd be glad to help. First, though, are you affiliated with Agency Insight? Because if so, I think you should consider reading our conflict-of-interest guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

hey on diary of a wimpy kid that was true he really does get hit in the head

Willie Desjardins edits

Hello, I'm Sfan00 IMG. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Willie Desjardins— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard the warning above. Sfan00 IMG, it would be appreciated if you would use greater caution during rollback reverts. In this particular instance Rrburke was fixing an article and you restored the vandalised version. [1] Similarly, you also restored a vandalised version of the Louis Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article moments before. [2] Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. It happens. Cheers, guys. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Medicine Walk cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Medicine Walk cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

hello

Why are you editing truthful information from my Wikipedia page? regards Janine Burke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.56.117 (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Home article

Dear Sir, I am extremely sorry for what mishap happened on 30.10.14. My youngest son was playing around with my computer for 'homework' reasons and must have edited this page. I have sternly spoken to him and told him the importance of Wikipedia.

Many apologies again,

Mr Robert May 151.224.30.69 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder1t1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings for how to cite a video. Let me know if you need help. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Haflong

Sir there is a video in youtube. Its title is Dream Destination Haflong please refer to that video and provide the correct information which i have been trying to do since then. Thanking you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder1t1 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Cathal (HillBilly) Cregg

I don't see how you can deem me adding Cathals Nickname as not constructive. Cathal has been known as HillBilly Cregg since his college days in N.U.I.G. Galway. Long before he went to study in Dublin. He is well known around the Roscommon Area as HillBilly Cregg for his laid back attitude. I also believe that I am the better judge on what is constructive or not constructive as I am actually good Friends with Cathal. I will be meeting him next week in Perth, Australia when he plays for Ireland against Australia in the International Rules competition. So please change my edit back or let me change it again. Go raibh míle maith agat mo chara.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticRos (talk • contribs)

Tá áthas orm buaileadh leat, MysticRos -- fáilte romhat isteach Wikipedia. Please ignore the "not constructive" boilerplate: the issue is a little subtler than that. A couple of problems with your edit: if you're adding a nickname that might in other contexts be considered derogatory, you need to cite a reliable, published source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is especially careful about the accuracy of articles about living people (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). This infobox has a "nickname" field you can add. When editing the article, just add

| nickname = HillBilly Cregg

somewhere in the infobox -- provided, of course, that you can provide a published source verifying the nickname.

Apologies if we seem unduly cautious, but I'm sure you can appreciate that there's a lot of vandalism to articles, and one way we mitigate that is to ask for a published source whenever something is potentially controversial. Cheers ---- Rrburke (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks giving

Thanks reviewing the article, Syed Delaor Husaein. Moreover, I am really impressed watching your stunning user page design. Best wishes!!! --- Sufidisciple (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Cemetery Vandalism

I saw you recently reverted unverified edits by 50.205.217.203. Looking at the user's talk page, its clear there is a history of vandalism from that IP address. I'm a new user and have been having a lot of trouble figuring out the appropriate reaction to ensure the vandalism doesn't continue. WP:Blocking IP addresses makes it look like there's not a lot that should be done. Could you offer some advice on how to best handle this particular situation? Thanks, RVA all day (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, RVA all day. The first line of defense is simply to revert the vandalism. If the IP persists, we issue a graded series of warnings you can find on the page Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If the vandal doesn't stop after the fourth warning, add a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and he or she will probably be blocked. The blocks will get increasingly longer if the user returns to vandalizing after the block expires. However, administrators are sometimes reluctant to give lengthy blocks to IPs because legitimate editors using that IP will also be blocked from editing. In the event of a rash of vandalism by IPs or new users, the page can be protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That clears a lot of things up. Gracias. RVA all day (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

shirtstorm

Hi, thank you for improving the shirtstorm article, however you have reversed my edits on the page without addressing my concerns about neutrality. If you think "radical feminist" and "factual feminist" are inaccurate or insulting descriptions I will gladly hear your concerns. But since I do not know your reasons I disagree with your changes concerning the titles and the removing of the -Gates.(I explained my reasons for the edits in the Talk page). Greetings Helester (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Helester. "Radical feminist" is a term that doesn't exist outside of a loaded vocabulary of opprobium, and so its use is incompatible with the principles set out in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Moreover, no reliable published source has referred to those who objected to the shirt as "radical feminists", nor has any evidence been adduced that this episode has caused a backlash against "radical feminism", so the usage of these terms likewise violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. As for "factual feminist", I haven't any idea what one is or might be.

Drawing the comparison to other "-gate"s etc is a form of original research because you have drawn the parallel yourself; it isn't mentioned in the published sources. If you wish, feel free to quote someone who has likened these events to each other, or include wikilinks to the Wikipedia articles on these controversies in a "See also" section. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello! Arghyabanik (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sending notices to bots

Hi, I see that you templated a bot for advertising. The only edit made by that bot to the page in question was itself a notice; specifically concerning this edit that the bot reverted. Please be careful that messages go to the right person. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. Unfortunately Huggle is behaving glitchily. I was trying to template User talk:CannaLink. I'll pay closer attention to what it's actually doing. Cheers -- Rrburke (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK - I never use Huggle so don't know what it lets you amend before saving. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi I'm the person who edited the Prussia page, I only fixed a misspelling, but thanks anyway

Mondale

You see, I wanted to check if this method would trick some people, mainly at patrol, and it apparently did: 15 minutes are quite a century by Wikipedia standards, especially in such an article. Cheers!--79.131.148.247 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Human brain and copy editing

Why did you do that? The content was clearly unsourced information and primary source. And what is wrong with acronyms? ;)ParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I mistook your edits for vandalism. I reverted the one, but I see you've taken care of the others. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Getmebest

Hello, I happened to get a note from your side asking me for the speedy deletion of the article I created. My bad. I was trying to create an article posting information about my company. Not with the intention of promoting it by any means.

It appears that Yup are a moderator. Can you guide me as to where I went wrong.

There were two problems: first, your username matched your company name or the URL of your website, which violates our username policy (please see WP:CORPNAME). Second, you shouldn't have created an article about your own company, because doing so is strongly discourage by our conflict of interest guideline (please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). -- Rrburke (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WHOA, how'd do you it so FAST?

I got a new message in like, 10 seconds. How'd you revert an edit and give me a message in that quick of a time?

By the way, doesn't Philae Lander sound close to "philander" or "philanderer?" I figured it may be more than a coincidence. --2602:306:B8A5:26B0:51B9:98DC:9A75:CEC9 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's called magic :) — BranStark (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ereingold

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec was born on Nov 24, 1864. It is in the beginning of the article. However under his portrait his birth year 1865. Today in fact his 150 birthday. Here is the source. http://www.google.com/doodles/henri-de-toulouse-lautrecs-150th-birthday

Evgeni Reingold

The article may have been vandalized at an earlier time and an incorrect date added. Please go ahead and restore your correction. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It is now correct, not sure who fixed it.

Source - daughter Aldabra. I was a close colleague and friend of David's at Cambridge.

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. Unfortunately for information like this to be added to a Wikipedia article, we require a published source. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark Matter

I should have entered my edit to the "Alternative theories" section. I look forward to your advice and any assistance. John

Are you there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.91.188 (talk • contribs)

Hi, John. I don't think the sentence fragment "black holes" belongs in the "Alternative theories" section either. Your edit didn't provide any explanation or cite a source. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dark Matter

You contacted me in reference to my edit to "Dark Matter." I now see that I should have entered my edit in the "Alternative theories." Any assistance would be appreciated. Best regards and thanks. John— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthuebner (talk • contribs)

Hi, John. I don't think this material belongs in the Alternative theories section either. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but for information that has been previously published in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Its a well known fact that the Australians got the meat pie from the British, the fact they serve it with mashed potato, MUSHY PEAS, and gravy of all things is proof enough!! I found it shocking that the British hardly gets a mention in the article 'meat pies' Just more rubbish by people trying to suppress the great food of Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofFood (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit didn't cite any sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Diamond Light Boogie edit

Not sure how many people are on the same IP as me, but I didn't edit the page. Possible someone else did - I guess they'll see the same message from you that I did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.158.123 (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Zipper

I made changes to the wikipedia page because the image and information posted was not correct. I am one of the film's producers. That poster was not our official release poster and the cast I removed are not in the film. Please restore the changes when you get the chance. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.231.165.56 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 108.231.165.56 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Number 5 edit

I understand how you may have not heard of that particular popular culture reference, but maybe it could be moved to a sub- category? It is popular with the youth (Especially in the southeast) and I think it is at least worth mentioning. This especially when so many other, what I consider less important, facts about the number 5 are included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.189.63 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical Malpractice

Thank you for your email-I am new to Wikipedia and trying to figure it out. You had mentioned that my addition was reverted because there was no reference. I had added a citation to a recent JAMA publication by Mello that reviewed medical malpractice. I added the reference to the top of the article since it is a general, comprehensive review of the topic and added a summary of a section from her article to the Wiki page. Her eis waht I added:

Nontraditional Approaches to Liability Reform[edit source | editbeta] The traditional approach to liability reform is to limit the amount of damages that can be recovered by a plaintiff (as noted above). Several new approaches to addressing medical malpractice have been investigated.[1]

Communication and Resolution Programs: When a medical error is identified, the patient is approached by the physician and/or health care system and they mutually arrive at a settlement. Several laws have been passed to facilitate communication and resolution (Mandatory presuit notification laws, apology laws and State-facilitated dispute resolution laws).

Safe Harbors for Adherence to Practice Guidelines: This approach provides a defense for physicians if they follow pre approved clinical practice guidelines.

Judge-directed compensation: A group of judges with expertise in medical malpractice meet with each sides attorneys and negotiates a settlement between the parties.

Administrative Compensation:Sweden and New Zealand created health courts. Claims are sent to these courts that have the authority to settle a claim. Attorneys are not required and the claims are settled based the opinions of neutral experts. Compensation is awarded based on preset schedules and are based on the degree of injury.

Note the citation [1] at the end of the first sentence.

Thank you for your help in this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcademicSurgeon (talk • contribs) AcademicSurgeon (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me now. It probably won't be removed again. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

THanks!AcademicSurgeon (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

First Punic War

added a link pointing to Samnite

Second Punic War

added a link pointing to Siege of Syracuse

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Cannae may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 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:

• and 1,500 Roman and allied cavalry were taken prisoner by the Carthaginians.<ref name=Livy />{{rp|[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10907/10907-h/10907-h.htm#d49 22.49.18] Although Livy does not
• of misfortune.|sign=[[Livy]]|source=on the Roman Senate's reaction to the defeat<ref name=Livy /><{{rp|[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10907/10907-h/10907-h.htm#d54 22.54]}}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Numa Pompilius 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:

• to Plutarch,<ref name=PlutarchXXXV /> these books were recovered some four hundred years later (in reality almost five hundred years, i. e. in 181 BC according to Livy [[s:From the Founding of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)