User talk:Temporaluser

Welcome!

Hello, Temporaluser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --ais523 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stub tag tab scripts

They're two different scripts; the one in the tagging section is more advanced. They used to be next to each other in the list, but someone seems to have split them up for some reason. --ais523 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive behavior

Thank you for improving the tag. That is the wording I would have used if I had known how to edit it. Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

Hi. You recently drive-by tagged Acid Dissociation Constant as having too long a lead. Please see my commentary on the talk page, in particular the failed FACs, and reconsider the tag. The idea that the lead is too long is...contentious, at best. I'm past the point of taking sides, honestly, but do reconsider. EagleFalconn (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the FAC archive to understand why the lead is so long. Petergans (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RBC redirect

Hi, Temporaluser. While "RBC" can refer to "red blood cell," "Royal Bank of Canada" is the vastly more common usage. (For example, I don't see a single instance of "red blood cell" in the top fifty search results on Google for the initialism.) The reason we have the {{other}} dabhat is specifically for instances like this. See, for example, NBC, which has dozens of other users, some quite common. Please reconsider your reverting to the dab.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't redir to red blood cell but to the disambiguation page exactly for the reason that it could refer to many things. I fail to see why Royal Bank of Canada is the more common usage (except for Canadians or businesspeople). In fact, red blood cell was indeed on the first 10 results.Temporal User (Talk) 00:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google results can vary, but you're saying it had one result in the top ten, undoubtedly amongst nine other hits for the Royal Bank of Canada. I work in healthcare, and lived nowhere near an RBC branch for the first two decades of my life, and still think of RBC as a bank. Further, RBC the bank is not limited to Canada or business: it has a significant presence across a large portion of the United States. Neither here nor there, though. RBC much more frequently refers to the bank than to the blood cells. Do you disagree with that? We have redirect, dabhat, and Subject (disambiguation) for a reason.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing traffic statistics to each page,[1] red blood cell visits are in the thousands for Jan '09, while bank visits for the same month are in the hundreds. This indicates that more users are looking for info on the cells, not the bank. Secondly, using the "What links here tool", red blood cell actually has more links than the bank. Finally, in response to your Google argument, although the bank is indeed the 1st result, the rest of the results (10/page) do not pertain to the bank. Google results don't actually vary that much, not in one hour anyways (I assume you've googled "rbc" after I replied). Your user page indicates you're interested in business. Perhaps, you're getting personalized results because your searches might be business-related. I made sure not to use personalized results when I searched for "rbc" and got results that were not all about the bank.
In short, I disagree that RBC refers to the bank, not the cells.
Even if red blood cells is not the primary page, the bank is not as well. Just a reminder, I didn't redir the primary page to red blood cells, but to a neutral disambiguation page. Temporal User (Talk) 01:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I think you missed my point. Red blood cell may be vastly more popular an article, but that doesn't mean it is the more common usage of the initialism RBC in every day use. I'd be happy to take a look at a screenshot of your results, however mine are depersonalized, and seven of the top ten results are for the Royal Bank of Canada (the others being for the missionary organization at number five, and an industrial business and a consulting firm as the bottom two). Google does recommend "red blood cell" as a potential search term below the results, as number seven out of eight other potential terms (all the rest referring to the bank or various of its entities).

Lastly, you mention the term "neutral." Neutrality isn't an issue when it comes to disambiguation pages. There remains a dabhat at Royal Bank of Canada and a complete disambiguation page (the plurality of which are bank-related entities). I haven't seemed to be able to persuade you with the fact that, even on your search results, I am sure the bank-related usage makes up the majority of "RBC" hits. The preferred solution on Wikipedia when one usage is more common than another is a redirect, combined with a dabhat and a dab page. That's what was set up, and I'm going to go ahead and restore the redirect.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this discussion to Talk:RBC (disambiguation). You should respond there if you wish.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in Enzyme inhibitor

Hi there, thanks for catching my mistake. I've rewritten that section and added two new references. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary explanation

Hi, when making changes ([2]), please provide an edit summary explanation per WP:FIES. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPAc-en

This template was designed for breaking up the transcription into separate phonemes. I hope you don't mind me fixing it on your user page. For regular transcription, I added the old templates, which still handle that just fine. — kwami (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi - I really did spend some time lookinf for replacements for the dead links, unsucessfully. thanks for the tip, I'll check it out. --Sreifa (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Acetone-butanol-ethanol fermentation, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (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) 10:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

View of Hoover Tower from Main Quad.

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!


ralphamale (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isolate (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) 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Busemeyer

Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Temporaluser, - Thanks for your good edits to the Radical centrism page earlier today. Regarding your placement of the "excessive or improper links" banner over the "External links" section, I want to share my rationale and then ask three questins.

Ratinale: Given that Radical centrism is a rellatively new political philosophjy, I thought that a relatively large number of external links would be hepful to readers. (And they may be - pageviews have nearly doubled since Dr. Ernie and I revised this page in mid-February; see my summary of the revisions near the bottom of the article's talk page.) However, I do want to make the Radical centrism page conform to Wikipedia's guidelins and get that banner removed ASAP.

Therefore, my questions: (1) will it be enough to eliminate the "Manifestos" and "Audio and video" sub-sections? If not, (2) how many external links may I safely leave under the "Organizations" and "Opinion weblogs" sub-sections (there are currently 17 and 15, respectively). Finally, (3) once I carry out the desired edits, where do I go to try to get the banner removed?

Thanks in advance for your respopnse (I'll watch this page). - Babel41 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would follow the guidelines in WP:EL. It doesn't mention any "hard number" for non-official links. I would also look at featured articles for good examples. In my opinion, I would integrate whatever was in the links into the article (assuming they're reliable) and remove any links to organizations not mentioned in the article. For the manifestos, I would just leave the major ones. When you feel the links follow the guidelines, you can remove the banner yourself. –Temporal User (Talk) 07:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coulomb's constant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (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) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesterol / The China Study

Hi- thanks for reaching out. I think the best referenced summation of the critiques is probably http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/ but see her http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/, page for a list of pages dealing with the topic. Similarly - http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/ and http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html Each of these cite the relevant literature, so I won't repeat those cites here. A distinction can be drawn between Campbell's popular book "The China Study" and the China-Oxford-Cornell Study which is research in which Campbell was a lead see The_China_Study_(book) if you really want to know more about all that. I'm pretty new to this, but happy to engage, so hope that replying on your talk page is the correct way :) Quarrel (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Processivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (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) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]