User talk:Reatlas

Hi, I'm inexperienced on Wikipedia, so I don't know how to cite articles, maybe you could help me. I follow the conflict in Somalia closely, here are several sources indicating Gary Schroen was assassinated by the Shabaab earlier this week.

https://twitter.com/HSMPRESS1/status/359723147521560578 https://twitter.com/HSMPRESS1/status/359723531552034816 https://twitter.com/HSMPRESS1/status/359723986881482752 https://twitter.com/HSMPRESS1/status/359724334782234626 http://somalimemo.net/index.php/maqal/6102-waa-kuma-gary-schroen-wax-ka-baro-taariikhda-madow-ee-madaxii-cia-da-bariga-afrika http://www.markacadey.net/news/70253/sheekh-ccasiis-abuu-muscab-oo-sheegay-inuu-dhintay-gary-schroen.html http://runta24.com/al-shabaab-oo-xaqiijisay-inuu-geeriyooday-gary-schroen/ http://warqaad.com/2013/07/24/shabaab-gary-schroen-oo-ah-sarkaal-mareykan-ah-waxa-uu-u-dhintay-dhaawacii-aan-u-geysanay/ http://warqabad.com/shabaab-oo-sheegtay-in-gary-schroen-uu-u-geeriyooday-dhaawac-kasoo-gaaray-qarax-ismiidaamin-ah-oo-muqdisho-ka-dhacay/ http://somalimidnimo.com/salafi/2013/07/akhri-gabay-abwaan-almujaahid-abuu-faadumo-ka-tiriyey-geeridii-gary-schroen-iyo-hanjabaadii-beesha-biya-maal-loo-diray/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.184.90 (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, here's a page that covers most of the information about citing sources.

The most basic method (assuming you are using the "edit source" mode) is to put the reference in between a "<ref>" and a "</ref>", so it should look like this: "I like sandwich<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reatlas/sandbox</ref>" which appears as: "I like sandwich^[1]" on the page. Then add a "{{reflist}}" to the reference section of the page, which will make this appear:

References

And the source is cited. Of course, if you are more experienced, there are several templates that can be accessed from the "Cite" menu above the editing box, which give you a few entry boxes for information on the source. — Reatlas (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avivore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You have made a mistake! (91.43.126.24 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

I find that rather doubtful. However if you can prove your edit is constructive and not vandalism, you may by all means do so. — Reatlas (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that you reverted my addition of DaVinci Systems email system because you have never heard of it? Is that correct? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's because it was a redlink with no citation to give any proof of notability. — Reatlas (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, no citation. That would cause the deletion of 99% of Wikipedia wouldn't it? What you should have done, if it bothered you so intensely, was remove the brackets, which I inserted so that maybe someone else would follow with the development of an article on overlooked entry. I, however, did not want to spend the time developing the article, which is why I left that way. I don't know if you are unfamiliar with technology or not, or maybe just to new to it. It is also possible that you are in a different part of the world which would not have seen that technology in the United States. If you were in technology in the 1980s or 1990s in the U.S. you would have heard of, or been personally familiar with it.

• I don't know if you have noticed but more than 50% of known western history is not included on Wikipedia because no one has access to most information prior to the late 1990s. That is a faux pas of the transference of human knowledge to its current quasi-digital state. Does that mean that all of these things did not actually happen, and they are only a figment of our imaginations? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are familiar with WP:V? And sources don't need to be digital. Books, newspapers and research papers are just fine. — Reatlas (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Realtlas, I noticed your last edit in the Sun article where you say: "Should have seen that one the last time". Yesterday I noticed that you left the letter 'a' in this sentence: "color is actually a white". I left it alone after my last fiasco.....lol, and figured you would catch it later; or...did you mean to leave it? If so, is that correct grammar? I think my English professor might disagree with you..:) If you wanted to say it was a certain kind of a white, you could have said: "it is a shade of white". Thanks:Pocketthis (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant the misplaced formatting [[|stellar classification|classified]]. As for grammar, I meant to leave it because as far as I know (knew?) a white was a perfectly valid phrase. No problem, we can change it to a shade of white to be clearer though. — Reatlas (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apex_predator&oldid=568189217&diff=prev : It was a sock of a blocked IP, and there is no consensus that linking journal names is even allowed (or that it is not required); there is no consensus on the subject at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of what the guideline is about. Albert Einstein is the article. [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] is the best way to pipe this. WP:NOTBROKEN is specifically about the lack of need to bypass redirects, i.e. there is no need, of changing a link of say [[Einstein]] to [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] if it's the only edit you're going to make. But one should certainly not be doing the opposite, i.e. changing [[Albert Einstein|Eistein]] to [[Einstein]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the guideline is about not having unnecessarily piped links. And there is a specific list of reasons why not to bypass redirects. — Reatlas (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, today I was so fed up of these 'editors' that I had decided to give up on Wikipedia completely. Since I love contributing to health topics and essential nutrients, I visited pages like Magnesium and Ginseng, spent at least half an hour getting references for all the information I already know but obviously I needed references to support what I knew. And these expert know it all editors like Alexbrn come in and keep reverting my stuff again telling me the references from Maryland university, NHS and other websites were not good enough :O Anyway, good to see contributors like you :) Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyGirl911 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing is actually a major problem affecting Wikipedia; a new contributor adds usable content but gets reverted because they aren't familiar with the formatting, style or policies. Glad I could be of assistance, if you need further help, you can also ask the Teahouse or WikiProject Medicine. — Reatlas (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Reatlas, I've just left you a note over at Talk:Ng Ser Miang about adding a new photo of him to the article. If you have a moment, could you take a look? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reatlas. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Good evening, Reatlas. I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit to the Sergei Kostitsyn article. I was simply trying to provide (as many users have before me) a standard transliteration of Kostitsyn's name from his native Belarusian language, as is typically done on English Wikipedia pages for famous persons from countries where the Cyrillic alphabet is used. If you desire to use the Russian translation, please spell his middle name Olegovich rather than Olegovič. --Demolition man (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Undone, my bad. — Reatlas (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drug of last resort may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Recently, resistance to even vancomycin has been shown in some strains of S. aureus (sometimes referred to as [[Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus|vancomycin resistant S.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12844323 |title=What is an adequate trial with clozapine?... [Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI |publisher=Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |date=2013-03-25 |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not over-write HTML codes such as &-m-d-a-s-h-; (without the dashes) with ASCII equivalents as you did at metric system. They are there because we cannot guarantee that all devices can render the symbol correctly. Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case you might want to complain to Wikipedia:AutoEd. You'll probably also want to rewrite Wikipedia:How to make dashes since that lists unicode — as just fine. — Reatlas (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is "Recognised" suitable to describe English on the info-box in regards to this Section of Article 82 on the Country's Constitution? http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LOB/cons_doc/dokumen-dokumen_perlembagaan_2008.pdf Article 82 Section (2) An official version in the English language shall be provided of anything which, by this Constitution or by any written law or by the Standing Orders, is required to be printed or in writing, and such version shall, in addition to the official Malay version, be accepted as an authentic text. Alevero987 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think so. — Reatlas (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

with respect, the mos is "not a suicide pact", nor is it a chain around our necks.

it is also somewhat dated, on a number of subjects.

if you can think of a BETTER way to include the link to commons, then go right ahead; but if you are really just going to keep on removing it, for petty reasons, WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ARTICLE, OR USERS, then please stop.

you have also used up your 3r's & now have at least 3 users who disagree with you about this edit.

if you feel the need, then we can go through the whole process on this one; but, with respect, you're wrong.

i haven't reported you for the 3r thing, but i will, if you keep it up.

sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes you do need to SHOUT, when people just aren't listening, or understanding, or thinking things through.

with respect, & in the hopes that we can resolve this peacefully,

Lx 121 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to follow any guideline at all costs, I am aware of WP:IAR and its implications. However, the MOS does exist for a reason.

The point of having an external links section to so consolidate all the links rather than having them spread throughout the article. This isn't, in my opinion, a controversial or dated idea. Established practice is not pettiness.

Yes. Place it in the external links section because it's an external link. That's what I've been doing in the last two edits before you reverted.

The reason why I even ventured near the 3R limit is because I keep being undone without any explanation. No reason given, just revert revert revert. Also, it's two editors, not three.

Yes please. I don't want to skip discussion because surprisingly, I feel (with all due respect) that I'm not wrong.

You started shouting in the very first edit, which seems to me that you weren't assuming good faith on my part.

Well thanks so very much for that I appreciate the thought.

Let's centralize discussion at Talk:Ferrous metallurgy#Commons link. — Reatlas (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit to the article on Metallurgy, changing "world" to "global". While it is not a big deal, I just wondered why you changed it. I kind of like "world" here. I think "global" is used more for politics, weather, and abstract concepts.CorinneSD (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"World metal production" is grammatically incorrect. You can change it to "metal production worldwide" or "the world's metal production" instead of global. — Reatlas (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

How is 'world metal production' grammatically incorrect? Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

World is a noun, not an adjective. — Reatlas (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nouns are frequently used as adjectives. See 'research papers' above for example. Rothorpe (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Where? — Reatlas (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the 'E-mail article edits - Da Vinci' section. Rothorpe (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be misunderstanding my own comments then. How exactly is "research papers" being used as an adjective? — Reatlas (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

'Research' is the adjective and 'papers' is its noun. 'Research' can also be a noun and a verb. Rothorpe (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. "Research" and "papers" rather than "Research papers". Isn't "research" being used as a noun in this case? — Reatlas (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a noun being used as an adjective. You can do that in English, just as in World Business Report. Rothorpe (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that is true. "World metal production" just sounds strange to me. — Reatlas (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well, that's better than 'incorrect'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to come back to this page until now. The above exchange is interesting, but I have to agree with Rothorpe that in English, nouns are used as adjectives all the time. Also, to me, "global metal production" sounds strange. "World wheat production levels", "world rice production", "world trade figures", "world bauxite production", "world industrial output" -- I've heard these phrases often. I've heard "global" more in phrases such as "Global warming", "global communication networks", "global corporation", and "global economic issues".CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed you have reverted my edit in Antideuterium part of Deuterium. Is it Antideuteron or Antideuterium? Sabbarish (talk) 1:48 PM, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's antideuteron. If you read the section, it specifically mentions antideuteron as the antiparticle to a deuterium nucleus (deuteron), and the sentence after next explains that antideuterium is a positron orbiting an antideuteron. — Reatlas (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why didn't you change the title? It's Anti Deuterium over there!! Sabbarish (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the section is about antideuterium, even though it starts off with an explanation on the closely related antideuterons. — Reatlas (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

However yo! Good Bye! Sabbarish (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

good day. i want to apologize for my mistake. i was in the middle of a rush work. thank you for notifying me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.150.250 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Caillou: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I normally do. — Reatlas (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Reatlas,

I noticed you did some work on other similar astronomy articles, and I'd like to ask you to have a look at the article I'm currently working on, Seyfert galaxy. The work I do on this article represents my 4th year Honours project for physics and one of my aims is to bring the article to good article status. I would appreciate any feedback.

Thank you, Careless Torque (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help, but if you want an expert opinion on the subject matter I suggest you also leave a message with WikiProject Astronomy. Something similar is already on-going with Astronomical spectroscopy. — Reatlas (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

can you please change it rather than remove it altogether? Your deletion behaviour is unconstructive. Leave it there, anyone who is not satisfied can change it. Jackzhp (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Change it to what? "It seems that people still do not exactly know the polarization is explained with photons" If I had any idea what that meant I would clarify it instead of deleting. Nevertheless, I respect your request. — Reatlas (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. A statement like that is going to need to be supported by a citation. Too speculative to let stand otherwise.--Srleffler (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, re this edit - why did you alter four instances of {{dead link}} to {{Toter Link}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a error in Autoformatter translation, replacing the wrong template; toter is german for dead and the script was originally for de.wiki. Anyway, thanks for the catch. — Reatlas (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Reatlas, Thanks for your edit. I am a dilettante when it comes to physics and would rank myself barely above High School AP courses, if that. As such, I don't really know about vapors and aerosols. I don't even know enough to plant a seed sentence. If you do, I think it would be a valuable distinction/explanation to add in the State of matter article. --Bertrc (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Radiation hardening 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:

• * [[Faraday cage]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to De-ice may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Urea]] ({{chem|CO(NH|2}})|2}}), a common fertilizer)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stroboscopic effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 128.211.168.1 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:SGpedians'_notice_board#2015.2C_please_read_my_update... --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Reatlas, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9HWuqi333444 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!