User talk:Rico402

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks Spinningspark. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)