|
User talk:Robert M JohnsonComments, Discussions, Criticism, etc.I saw your message that you had created an account. Welcome to Wikipedia! And no worries: hey, if you didn't like the template, you didn't like the template. But I hope that you enjoy it here! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC) G1 UserboxThank you for your note. No problem, glad I could be of help! - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Hi. I am trying to maintain my cool in response to your edit summary "Replaced sloppy quote (spelling errors, etc.) with a more direct, and accurate quotation." as I have been guilty of similarly inappropriate phrases before now myself. If you check the reference (which has not been altered) you will find that the text matches exactly what I had entered. I know this to be the case because I cut-and-pasted it from the Project Gutenburg website myself. Could you provide a reference for the text that you used, please? EdJogg (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Bill Thayer's English Translation of Book 1 chapter 6.2 of Vitruvius: On Architecture [1] Check it out. It is by far the most recent and accurate, and it is the most-logical choice from the existing English translations:
It's a direct translation of:
(from the Latin Teubner edition of 1899 by Valentin Rose) Also, sorry if my edit summary came off as rude. The information (above the direct quotation) was presented very poorly, and there were indeed spelling errors. -Robtalk 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Response re AeolipileThe only edit I made to this article is in the discussion of the physics of the device, not in any direct quotations of original latin description. At least there is no reference to such a source, and I would find it curious if an early source already knew about Newton's laws and rocket principles. The only reference is to an online science encyclopedia with a treatment that is rather low level. The discussion of the physics was inaccurate and with some poor language. For example, it is not the nozzle that generates the thrust, but the expanding steam exiting the nozzle, the nozzle only serves to increase the exit velocity of the gas. I could cite more problems, but I think you must be referring to another editor's changes. Kbrose (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Wesley Autrey article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Wow..... a TEMPLATE to "show concern." I followed all instructions with my nomination. It couldn't have just been left up? Let it fail? Nothing wrong with failure. Its part of the learning process. How am I to "learn" anything from this event if some loser with no life removes it before it even gets a chance? At a box-car derby, you don't tell the child with a car who obviously won't win that he cannot compete. You are ignorant. -Robtalk 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Persons, like yourself, who become involved voluntarily in "policing" the Wikipedia (for no purpose other than personal gratification) are sad. Problems Involving Copyright, Source, Annoying Bot users, etc."Wiki Bot" OwnersYour "contributions" to the wiki, from my personal experience thus far, have been nothing short of automated attempts at removing valuable (albeit, uncited) information from the eye of the general public. If a human being were to perform the same analysis of your bot(s), one would clearly realize that this "help" is in fact a nuisance in many situations. Robert M Johnson (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry if I came off too trigger-happy or aggressive in tagging the article. I added the expand and reference tags because a large portion of the articles that I see on New Page patrol are not touched again for a while, and usually by newer users. In the future it might be beneficial to add the reference with the article initially; I'm not the only one doing new page patrol, so anyone could add that template. Also, I'm not a bot. :P As for the threads above this one, those aren't bots either but editors using automated programs, such as WP:TWINKLE or WP:FRIENDLY. I don't know if you already knew this stuff or not, but it doesn't hurt for me to explain it if you don't. Have a nice evening, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I am more than aware of these "Automated browsers," because I find the automated wiki community annoying, and I have looked into ways to avoid conflict. A bot performs actions much the same way a "user" (utilizing an automated browser) would. They are all "bots" in my opinion.-Robtalk 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I find, both users who use scripts to edit the wiki and bots (and their likeness) to be annoying since "edits" are made usually without a human being judging the actions (IE adding things to a page within 60 seconds of it being created). It is not difficult to understand. -Robtalk 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
With the keyword in my previous statement being the word "usually", my statement is still valid. Simply since your judgement was, in your own words, "trigger-happy or aggressive," I merely assumed your actions were a bit more automated than what you claim. Can you honestly tell me that you checked to see when the page was created? Or did your script skip all of that "judgement" for you? That is the lack of human being judgement I am referring to. Many users like yourself contribute to the Wikipedia using scripts, and many of them simply prevent valid (though sometimes uncited) information from reaching the casual individual browsing the wiki. In my case, however, an automated script triggered a red flag for tagging seconds after I had created a page, giving me little time to add the proper citation. Perhaps if you enjoy tagging articles, you might like to browse newly created pages that were added a bit more than a few seconds ago.-Robtalk 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Robertmjohnsonuserimage.jpg Thank you for uploading File:Robertmjohnsonuserimage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
File source problem with File:LCHS.jpgThanks for uploading File:LCHS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Tlaxcalamap.jpgFile:Tlaxcalamap.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tlaxcalamap.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Tlaxcalamap.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I'm assuming this bot is utilized to lighten the load on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the bot has done so far, other than uploading a copy of the image to Wikimedia and overwriting any source information submitted with the original upload. I don't see this going well, but I will give it a fair chance. -Robtalk 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC) IP vandalismIf you have a problem with the procedures laid out at WP:VANDAL then take it up there instead of littering my talk page. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Again, as I stated before, I am more than familiar with Wikipedia and its rules/guidelines (while you clearly misunderstand them). It specifically states USER, not IP address. "If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page." -Robtalk 10:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:LCHS.jpg Thanks for uploading File:LCHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). PLEASE NOTE:
Strange... the "image" was still linked to a page until 13:09, 9 July 2011 when CommonsDelinker claimed it had been deleted, and removed the link. The image itself was deleted before the link to the image on the page was severed, so this "orphaned" issue is some sort of bot malfunction. -Robtalk 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Children's Museum backstage pass
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.  In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 13Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rytlock's Critter Rampage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shockwave Flash. 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) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Non-free rationale for File:RytlockBoss.png Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RytlockBoss.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC) A comment on your user page.Your comment on your feelings about Purdue Calumet made me smile a smile of reminiscing. I attended both IU Bloomington and IUN (aka Gleason Park High). Math is not my best subject and I failed intro Calculus twice in Bloomington. Got an A at IUN. Yup...spent most of the semester on polynomials, a subject I learned in 8th grade. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Ugh what an "experience" that was. My user page actually hasn't been updated in quite some time, and I only just today updated my age, which was last updated six years ago. I never did finish that semester at Purdue Calumet, as I formally withdrew from my courses as I had predicted. I ended up working full time to support myself while pursuing my CompTia A+ and Net+ certifications to work in the IT field. The nail in the coffin for my pursuit of the degree from that "university" was the Java Programming teacher. To summarize.... I was basically paying thousands of dollars for a foreign woman to read lines aloud from a textbook (which I was perfectly capable of reading myself... with a much higher rate of comprehension, mind you) in her broken English. There wasn't ever a moment where we had any hands on learning (where we would actually touch a computer during class) during the short amount of time I was enrolled in that course either... which was something I had been used to while studying other programming languages. I should have just stuck with it, but I was rebellious and had a serious problem with authority back then. You know.... "I won't be part of the system" and all that. It was a very expensive waste, having such a superiority complex. Anyway... my userpage is old and outdated, so don't form any notions about how much of an insufferable know-it-all prick I am. I've pretty much "grown up" since I created the page... but thanks for reading just the same. -Robtalk 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Reference errors on 25 December
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC) April 2020
Custom signature fix neededHi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software. The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order. The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.
Current signature: Fixed signature: More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Journal-article titleRegarding [this edit] of yours, when I look at doi:10.1080/01635581.2016.1224366, I see an article entitled "Sucralose Non-Carcinogenicity: A Review of the Scientific and Regulatory Rationale". Are you seeing something other than that? DMacks (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Chinese Checkers(Shivers).jpg Thanks for uploading File:Chinese Checkers(Shivers).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
||||
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}