User talk:Srich32977/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

San Bernardino

Can you tell me in what way my edit for the San Bernardino page was "vandalism?" I added facts about my city that are absent from Wikipedia. I want those facts on the page, so how do I add the facts about Presidents visiting San Bernardino and what they said and did here-of which I left many out because I can't put them all-the citation given by President Reagan? Everything I put up happened. How do I speak to someone that is in charge and not an editor?Ilovepinkyrings (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I admit I was too hasty in labeling the addition as vandalism. I first saw the addition of "'I love San Bernardino'" that you added. Such comments are typical vandalism edits.

I see you have mentioned The Sun as a source. With this in mind, you need to give more specific information about TR's visit. Still there is question about the encyclopedic nature of TR's visit. It is interesting, but may fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Same thing applies to your edit of Quiz Show. The concise description of the success was a good one, but you remove one reliable source and substituted something less desirable. Then you added a lot of info from mojo. Once that edit was reverted, we need to go to the Bold Revert Discuss process on the talk page. That is, bring up your points about why the added info on Quiz Show should be added. The other editor will respond. (I will put Quiz Show on my watch list.)

Finally, ILP, be sure to read the info on your talk page that was added to your welcome message. It will help you become a more effective editor. --S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

editing restorative practices stub

I have worked up new material for the "restorative practices" stub, but I am reluctant to edit it myself as I have a COI in this area, as I work for the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP). I noticed you added a {wikify} tag in November to this page, and therefore I'm writing to you to reach out for assistance as to the best way to proceed to help produce a good page that can help present this important field on Wikipedia.

The article as I've edited to date can be found at my sandbox - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshwachtel/sandbox At the moment, I've completed the text but I would like to add some images and don't have the credentials yet to do so.

In my editing process I have responded to a memo left a couple years ago, when the article was reduced to a stub, noting copyright infringement. The article that I have used as the template for the new version I am editing has now been licensed under Creative Commons BY SA 3.0 and can be found in its entirety at Defining Restorative

I believe this topic does deserves a significant page but I also want the resulting article to conform to Wikipedia's mission of neutrality and fairness.

Thank you for your help.

Yours, Josh Wachtel Joshwachtel (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Josh, the "wikify" tag I added was done through a semi-automated editing tool. (I did not have any particular edits needed on the original stub.)

What I have seen on your sandbox article is interesting. So I've done some minor edits with another semi-automated editing tool to fix endash usage.

Also:

• I've set up a multi-ref example in the article for you to follow. (for more info see: WP:CTT.) When these multi- citations have particular pages in books, etc. you can add {{rp|xx}} immediately after the citation template (with the page numbers used in place of "xx". Using the multi-ref produces an article with more text compared to the footnote list.
• I've removed the link in "See also" section. We don't repeat links again and again (unless they are needed at the begining and ends of longer articles.
• I've moved some sections for proper layout.
• I cannot help you with the image question. My experience in this is very limited.
• Also, I suggest you declare your COI.
• Finally (which may be your greatest challenge), I recommend you take an encyclopedic view of the article. As written, it has WP:JARGON and relies on your WP:PRIMARY source view of the subject. (Indeed, YOU are the source!) If you were to write the article without the material from you and Ted, would it be understandable? Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your attention to this, your work and helpful suggestions. I would appreciate being able to keep you posted as I develop this. Josh Joshwachtel (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The pages are on my watchlist.--S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education‎

Thank you for the editing. The article is really looking good now. --Abel (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Those edits were quite extensive documented criticisms

Those edits were quite extensive documented criticisms, that alone disproves a POV argument. Look at the refences: Harvard, Princeton, original Hayek letters and documents including his own Mont Pelerin Society (MPS). Please, better find another "reason". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.180.101 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was in the middle of moving your earlier comments to the bottom of the talk page and adding some commentary, but an edit conflict interfered. We'll hash this out a bit later. --S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You better hash this one out, because Hayek von Pinochet is NOT going away: http://coreyrobin.com/2012/07/18/when-hayek-met-pinochet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.180.101 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at the material you provided and did some edits. First of all, only part of Hayek's sentence was quoted. The second part was provided, which I think improves on the context. E.g., Hayek was referring to Thatcher in the letter, not Pinochet. Accordingly, I tagged it as OR. But really hashing this out may be a Bridge Too Far. Hayek was commenting on other letters, which we do not have access to. So I've provided the entire paragraph from the letter.--S. Rich (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to reply.

I have just been very busy.

I love Wikipedia and would like to contribute in some way. But one problem is that I just don't understand copyright law. For example, even after reading the terms of use at Wikipedia, I still am not sure whether or not I can use excerpts from the article without re-licensing under creative commons.

Also, I don't remember now, but is there any restriction on the types of websites you can post Wikipedia on - such as ones that might require registration and/or have ads?

And how does one handle posting anything from Wikipedia on websites where you cannot put the actual copyright symbol?

Further, at the bottom of this page, I see you state that violations of copyright will be removed. However, does that mean that if someone did this accidentally that they would be in trouble with Wikipedia?

I really do not understand copyright law.

Maybe I could try some editing when I get the time. That is, after I have read and understand how to do this. And, sadly, I think that learning how to edit properly is going to take me some time.

Thanks and keep up the good work!

Who's on 3rd (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Who's on 3rd

Try looking at WP:FAQ/Copyright. For external links (outside webpages), look at WP:EL and WP:ELNO. Happy editing!--S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of people from Palm Springs, California

Hi, did you ever think more about splitting the article? There's certainly no rush, but I was just curious. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Still thinking.--S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

Apparently, when I said that "The word substantial will mean different thing to different people." I was starting an edit war, but when you said the same thing, it all made perfect sense. I can't thank you enough. --Abel (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome (x3).--S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

John Stossel

Hi. Regarding your second edit to John Stossel, just so you know, removal of material is not warranted by a dead link, as indicated by Wikipedia:Link rot. Updating the link or placing a {{deadlink}} tag on the cite are considered among the acceptable ways to address dead links. For now, though, don't worry about, as I updated the url. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. My ignorance on fixing these things was one factor in simply deleting. But the fact was such a minor one, it didn't register as an important point for me. Still, I'm happy to learn and glad that you've fixed it. --S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bachelor admiral

IMO, this is vandalism. If I didn't, in fact, rv that.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits on the Politifact article

That content had existed on that article previously, but was removed for unknown reasons. There has been significant criticism leveled against Politico by prominent conservatives and libertarians which deserves noting.--174.48.32.232 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Hey friend! You know I haven't been able to get on wiki for the last week or so (work's been manic!) ... and when I came back I had your lovely message waiting for me! Thank you so so much!!! I'm so pleased I accidentally overloaded you with barnstars - all (and more) very much deserved :) Here's hoping we'll get to work together on something again in the not-too-distant future :) With all very best wishes, and many thanks, Loriski (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

dysphoria / confusion

Hello,

I think your removing my edit is in error. The terminology used in the article "gender confusion" is not accepted terminology for Mannings' condition, and ought to be changed to conform to the WPATH Standards of Care Version 7 found at http://www.wpath.org/documents/SOC%20V7%2003-17-12.pdf

Thank you for reconsidering.

Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaOBrien (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct, but adding this analysis is original research. That is, you are going far beyond what the source says. As an editor, you cannot take WPATH standards and apply them to Manning or any other subject. --S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, what the source says is "(02:06:44 PM) bradass87: as a result, i was referred (forced) to behavioral health… to evaluate me… as a result, my commander had access to all of my mental health files… ergo how they found out about my cross-dressing history, discomfort with my role in society, and the environment i’ve placed myself in" The sentence I edited is a construct of the author, not a representation of Manning's actual conversation with Lamo. As such, the edit is not analysis, but a correction of the article language. yours - Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaOBrien (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SYNTHESIS. The issue is in what Fishman said in the New York article. He doesn't use the medical term dysphoria. A bit later the Manning article refers to GID, which is wiki-linked. But we've got to stick to what each source says and not do to much analysis. Correcting the Fishman "article language" is a no-no.--S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The article in question (in new york magazine) does not use the term "gender confusion" either. --Kuzetsa (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fishman uses the phrase "concerns about his sexual identity", not gender confusion. Of course, I do appreciate your help in pointing me to resources to become a better wikipedian. Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianaOBrien (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are most certainly welcome. (concern ≠ dysphoria, so we stick with what we read.) --S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That was most kind

Thank you, sir. That was one of the nicest things to happen to me on Wikipedia so far. I thank you for making my day! petrarchan47tc 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome.--S. Rich (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Studentpulse

I do in fact respectfully disagree, and I've started a discussion detailing my objections. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found some stuff and posted it. --S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hey :)

Just wanted to say thanks for stepping in. I had written to Teahouse to ask what to do (cos I didn't feel competent enough to handle it) before I saw you were on it already! Will keep an eye in case any content issues come up that I can be useful with, but otherwise will leave it in your and SPhilbrick's capable hands :) Lorelei (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. --S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning out Friedman 'influence' sections

Dear Srich,

Following up on our earlier discussion, would you care to help me clean up the ridiculously long 'influence' sections in the Milton Friedman article?

Right now, 'Influences' section includes: "Adam Smith, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Murray Rothbard, Jacob Viner, Harold Hotelling, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, George Stigler".

'Influenced' section includes: "Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, Alan Greenspan, David D. Friedman, Anna J. Schwartz, Ben Bernanke, Gary Becker, Thomas Sowell, Harry Markowitz, Chicago Boys, William F. Buckley, Jr., Cato Institute"

You correctly pointed out the names not mentioned in the article text should be removed. FurrySings (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to go ahead with trimming the influences in the Friedman article, but I fear I will face resistance. How do you suggest I proceed? FurrySings (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I'm getting the feeling that On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace has some significant copying that isn't attributed. For example, in the Aftermath section: "One of the last points to be made in this book is the idea of justice not vengeance. Although not considered to be a major problem in law enforcement, it is nonetheless important to emphasize that killing, when justified and necessary, is not something to be glorified or celebrated. It is just something that is. Being forced to kill another human being is not something we do with a hatred of the crook or glee at their demise. We just do it. We must strive to dispassionately but effectively protect others as well as ourselves." If this isn't a copyvio, then it is some significant OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But trying to figure that out is a bit too deep into the weeds for me.--S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I may have to shelf that for now. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

PSUSD

I was updating the PSUSD listing of schools and they lack enough citations, I consulted the PSUSD web site and the site hasn't really listed them, the school district is financially troubled to a point future school projects are cancelled. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps The Desert Sun can help. Otherwise you're stuck. Additions without RS will be deleted.--S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize to you and LC for recent unsourced edits which were removed and the ones have been rechecked for sources, they have been planted to them. Logical cowboy is recommending discipline for my anon IP and my now-unused member account. 71.102.21.238 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Why not go back to Mike D and use that account? If you don't like the fact that various messages are posted on its' talk page, you can remove them in accordance with WP:OWNTALK. If you've forgotten your password, I'm sure there's a method to retrieve it. (Since you are a registered editor, you should edit under that name.) Also, I recommend that you study the tutorial on editing WP. Many of your efforts need improvement and you will gain greater acceptance if you show more skill in editing. The TUTORIAL will help.--S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"California Innocence Project" in Tracy Emblem page

Our project, California Innocence Project, is referenced in this article. There was a link attached to our name directing the reader to the New York Innocence Project. This is NOT CORRECT. I undid that link (I don't know who is responsible for mislinking our name) and inserted the correct link to the California Innocence Project.

Thank you, Kahcwsledu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahcwsledu (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response on your talk page. (I will be deleting this discussion IAW WP:OWNTALK.) Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by using 4 tidles "~~~~"--S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

California Innocence Project

Thank you! I will get our page up this week so I can link to that. You are awesome, and I appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahcwsledu (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

External links Edits

Hello Srich32977, I noticed you or other wikipedia authors pulled external links that I added yesterday. I am a photographer like others who have added external links to wikipedia pages. For instance on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasco,_Arizona under "External links" there is the link Sasco description and photos, which links to http://www.ghosttowns.com. This is an information website on ghost towns and offers the same information as my website that was pulled.

ghosttownaz.info is a private, non-commercial or non-profit website that offers information and photographs on specific ghost towns throughout Arizona and doesn’t sell anything.

I don’t see why I was banned when others are doing the same.

Please explain how I have submitted wrong information or violated anything on wikipedia.

Thanks, Desert Explorer AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert Explorer AZ (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at these talk pages: User talk:Desert Explorer AZ‎ and User talk:Vsmith‎. (Also, please sign your talk page posts with four ~~~~.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you erase my changes

Why did you erase my changes there was nothing unreasonable about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Is this about using Wikipedia references? Sorry I didn't catch that, but the article is missing a lot of content.

Correct. We actually seek to rely on reliable sources. Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles themselves are not reliable. --S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your cleaning in the List of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 06:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You are most certainly welcome! Although I'm old, I do a little BJJ, so I had to make room for my own trophy in case I actually get good at it. (But I won't turn down your treat simply because my motive is suspect.) --S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Well the list would love to have your eventual addition. Hell, if I make it to 100+ maybe I could get on there with a red & black belt(!) ;) Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: California Project Clean up link fix

Its the WolterBot (talk · contribs), its no longer active since B. Wolterding (talk · contribs), the owner of the Bot has not been active since 2010. There is a cleanup listing from the toolserver which Svick (talk · contribs) made which I've replaced it with {{WikiProject cleanup listing}} template. Its located at the tools section. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 00:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl Eytel

The article Carl Eytel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Carl Eytel for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 09:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Dean Gray comments

My name is Dean Gray and I am the founder and former publisher of the Desert Star Weekly, an adjudicated weekly newspaper, the only newspaper located in the city of Desert Hot Springs and publishing stories of the city. I have lived in the city for over a decade, vote in the city, and am very active in civic matters in this city.

At present the most recent history of the city for the last 5 years is and available only on Desert Vortex. There are 100 stories posted and several hundred more yet to post. I sold the newspaper business in April and the new owners deleted all the on-line archives preferring instead to cover stories about the senior talent show and pets on parade.

Removing the link to the history of the city is discriminating history. This is not what any encyclopedia or Wikipedia is about. History is more than that and you should not play politics to decide what history goes on Wikipedia and what not. Desert Vortex not only source offers reprints of the original articles I wrote and published at Desert Thorns website, the Desert Star Weekly website and elsewhere and is the only source for more recent history of the last 5 years. That is why this link exists and why history should not be discriminated against.

Stop playing God with history. It exists. Get over it and lets move on and deal other important matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.101.115 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "playing God", Dean, this is about what Wikipedia is and how it works. I suggest you study up in the tutorial. It will be helpful to learn what the rules are.--S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Google has everything!--S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

state vs. State

Hi. I'm not sure what evidence you require citing which states that a "State" is different from a "state." As far as I know, this is a common distinction. A State is equivalent to a sovereign nation, whereas, as state is a semi-sovereign entity within the State. Other than citing common usage, and what is generally accepted practice...I'm not going to dig in too much to make my case (with all due respect!). I thought I could improve the entry a little. Whomever published the original article should have used the capitalized form of state. If it had been entered that way, I doubt the question would have ever come up. Thanks, Seth(erson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setherson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps proper noun and MOS:CAPS will help. A "state" certainly can be a sovereign nation, in which case we are referring to "The State of Israel" or "The State of Palestine". These are particular entities. But capitalizing "state" does not turn whichever "state" into a particular entity. Would it make sense to say "The State is a state."? No. But we can say "Palestine is a state" or "Israel is a state". We do not say "X is a State".--S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

JohnJay1745 comments

COPY of recent mail to Arthur Rubin:

1. To show that I’m a good legal writer, without reference to SSRN , please consider that my book, Krueger on United States Passport Law, is in libraries, including the Harvard Law Library. It doesn’t buy rubbish. You can check the holdings of the HLS law library through their online catalogue. The book is 300+ pages of original work on the U.S. passport law and history.

2. You were uncertain whether my book has value. Without knowing you, how would I ever answer the question of what’s good in your eyes? One way for you to determine value is to look at book reviews. There might be some on the Web. Another way is for you to read it yourself. You can probably pick up a used copy online. If you do, you should buy the second edition, which is better than the first edition. I was not happy with the first edition.

3. More about good legal writing: I wrote the definitive article on the U.S. census. It was published in a paper law review. "The Decennial Census", 19 Western State Law Review 1 (1981). You can get it at a law library, or you can read an updated version on SSRN. Through original research going back to the Albany Plan of Union (1754) and the Constitutional Convention (1787), I show that the Constitution requires and authorizes an enumeration -- a headcount. A census (an inquiry about personal facts) is not authorized. The nosiness of the Census Bureau is unconstitutional.

4. My article on Massachusetts civil motor-vehicle infractions appeared originally in a paper law review: vol. 20 of the Western State Law Review (1992). It appears also on SSRN.

5. Crossbow Corporation is not in Australia. It’s a Chinese publishing house. (I live and work in Hong Kong.) It published the passport book. I didn’t pay them to do it. I collected royalties from sales.

6. There’s no self-promotion with mentioning the book. It was published in 1997 (1st edition). It was last updated in 2005 (2nd edition). It’s now out of print, so I have nothing to sell.

7. There’s no self-promotion with my articles, either. I’m a corporate lawyer. As I mentioned before, I don’t look for clients among the general public. I’m an employee. I collect a salary. That’s it. I do not have my own law firm. I’m not associated with any law firm. I don’t advertise in any way. There’s no professional benefit to me if someone finds out that I wrote this or that.

8. Also, most Web users are in the USA. I don’t benefit, here in Hong Kong, if anyone in the USA finds out that I wrote whatever.

9. There’s no enhancement of reputation on SSRN. They publish whatever they want to. It’s not my website. Also, as with any other publishing outfit, they have to select what to publish and not to publish. They can’t select articles on the basis of reputation, or they’d lose readers. Anyhow, as I mentioned, I had 2 articles bounced by them. I have no “reputation” which would cause publication of a (to them) sub-standard article.

10. Going back to proof of the quality of my writing: I write extensively. I write under both Kruger and Krueger. Depends what I’m writing. Also, I write fiction under a pseudonym. But if I don’t know your taste in fiction or in non-fiction, I can’t prove that I’m a good writer.

11. You wrote, “I disagree that all your references are relevant.” I thought that they are relevant. For example, the article about Massachusetts civil motor-vehicle infractions was listed under the Wikipedia subject “Massachusetts district court.” That’s because, when a motorist is charged with a civil motor-vehicle infraction, he gets a first hearing. If the motorist doesn’t like the result of the first hearing, he can appeal. If he does that, the appeal is heard by a *district-court judge.

11. If you have a particular citation in mind, let me know. I’ll explain how it fits in with the Wikipedia subject heading which I chose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NEW message to Arthur Rubin and you To Arthur and to SRich -- I see that my references were removed. Have I explained that what i did was not self promotion, and that my entries are relevant to the Wikipedia subsject matter? Or do u want to go through them one by one, and make a decision? Wholesale removal, *before looking into the merit of my entries, and *before getting my side of the story, is *unfair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjay1745 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I will respond on Arthur Rubin's talk page. Later I'll delete this section IAW WP:OWNTALK.--S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

CONUS

Per the comment on talk page; I didn't actually realize that it is not appropriate for articles, when I came to the attention of this abbreviation on the article Hawaii and I thought that I want to put the abbreviation to other US state articles because it is appropriate. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 08:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood, HTO. As you are a fairly new editor, I pointed out the Manual of Style guideline and thought you'd learn a tid-bit about the WP endeavor. Thanks for your contributions!--S. Rich (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Mr. Rich, thank you for determining that the second citation for Wineville Chicken Coop Murders from the Rubidoux Historical Society is not self published. Although I wondered about the assertion that the article is self-published, I had no basis for challenging that assertion. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate citation

The information I added to the page refers to a film. How best could I cite the film as the source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbird (talk • contribs) 10:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Xxbird, I think you are referring to Moorcroft, Wyoming. The citation issues involve WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. If you are looking that the movie and say "OH! I recognize that place -- it's Moorcroft." Then you are engaging in original research, which is a no-no in Wikipedia. So how does one verify that the place is Moorcroft? We (other editors and readers) cannot take your word for it. We need a reliable source to tell us. So resources like the film's website, Variety magazine stories, or maybe even Internet Movie Database would work. For more established films, the American Film Institute is a reliable source, as is Turner Classic movies. If you were editing the article about the film, you cannot say the film itself refers to Moorcroft unless, perhaps, some character or sign actually mentions Moorcroft as part of the storyline. But I don't know that the film does so. Thus you are stuck. Unable to properly meniton Moorcroft in the film article, and unable to mention the film in the Moorcroft article. (You might look at two lists I prepared in the last few months : List of films shot in Palm Springs, California and List of films and TV series set in Palm Springs, California. For the most part those articles or the film articles themselves have reliable sources cited which serve to verify the Palm Springs connection to the different films/TV shows.--S. Rich (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Example in "Armed forces"

I have noticed that some time ago you have removed a sentence with edit summary "delete "example" -- no basis to show it is typical, besides supported by non-English reference which Google Translate couldn't decipher; ce" ([1]). As far, as I see, the sentence didn't claim that anything was or was not "typical". Also, while an example from USA or UK supported by a source in English might be better, I do not see what is really wrong with non-English sources. Thus, could you, please, explain your position in a little more detail? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit: [2]. Actually, there are two problems: One is more of an original research issue. That is, the material seems to come directly from Lithuanian statutes and the editor is giving their view on what the statutes mean. In this regard WP prefers secondary sources. Two, the paragraph needs a reference that supports the general description of the military. Giving us the Lithuanian description does not help. It could well be that Lithuania is the single exception -- in any case the Lithuania example is a distraction. I've got nothing against non-English sources, but figuring out what the Lithuanian statute is about is too much for me and Google Translate. It does not serve verification.--S. Rich (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, there is an official translation of that law (older version): [3]. The part that has been cited is Article 3:

"Article 3. National Defence System

1. The national defence system shall consist of:

[...]

2) the Army, and upon introduction of martial law or in the event of an armed defence against aggression (in wartime) – also other armed forces: the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the “State Border Guard Service”), the Public Security Service under the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Security Service”), the combat platoons of the Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union and other armed resistance combat (partisan) platoons of citizens and their organisations subordinate to the command of the armed forces;

[...]"

Are you sure that getting "For example, according to the Lithuanian law on organisation of system of national defence and military service (version actual from November 11, 2004), the Lithuanian armed forces in case of war also include border guards, public police service, parts of Lithuanian Riflemen's Union and guerrillas." from that is original research..? I do understand that sometimes laws are not very straightforward, but this case does seem to be pretty clear...

And about "figuring out what the Lithuanian statute is about is too much for me and Google Translate. It does not serve verification." - sorry, but it is not necessary that everyone could verify everything completely effortlessly. Verifiability can also include asking for translation. Actually, there is a discussion about that in Village pump right now (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Verifiability for articles with no English sources - [4]; by the way, that discussion did remind me of this specific case)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The official translations satisfy the verification requirement. And they pinpoint specific provisions of the law. But does this description of the law tell us how the Lithuanian armed forces are actually constituted? No, they only give the theoretical structure of the forces. So the interested editor is saying "Lithuanian Law describes the Lithuanian armed forces as having such-and-such components, and I think this means the Lithuanian armed forces are an example of an exception to how armed forces around the world are generally constituted." Sadly, the armed forces article lacks sufficient material to put the Lithuanian elements into context. (And with that in mind to include them would violate WP:UNDUE.) What to do? My recommendation is to use the translated law as a supporting reference for the Lithuanian Armed Forces article. Then that article could be used as a WP:SEEALSO in the armed forces article.--S. Rich (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"But does this description of the law tell us how the Lithuanian armed forces are actually constituted? No, they only give the theoretical structure of the forces." - sure, it doesn't look like the conditions were ever met.

"So the interested editor is saying "Lithuanian Law describes the Lithuanian armed forces as having such-and-such components, and I think this means the Lithuanian armed forces are an example of an exception to how armed forces around the world are generally constituted."" - sorry, but who is the "interested editor"? Anyway, the statement that was illustrated by this example was not about some way to structure the armed forces. It simply said that "armed forces" is mostly "military", but can have some additions (you might note that on the talk page there were some discussions about merging "Armed forces" and "Military" as synonymous). Now I doubt that giving such an example for that violates WP:UNDUE. Actually, I would think that adding a link to the article about Lithuanian armed forces to "See also" would be more likely to be a violation of that (unless we would list the links to all other similar articles - but that would be silly)...

Anyway, I guess that the main problem has been solved and now it might be best to continue this discussion on the talk page of the article itself... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments: I said "interested editor" because I didn't look for the particular editor who added the material. Because the basic Armed forces article is so sparse, I really don't know how much the Lithuanian material will help. Concepts such as para-military, militias, reserve forces, insurgent forces, etc. could be/need to be included. Feel free to C&P this discussion to the talk page. Thank you for an interesting and intelligent discussion!--S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Negative real interest rates on public debt

Thanks for your message. I was confused by your edit summary so I asked about it at Talk:United_States_public_debt#Negative_real_interest_rates. Could you please reply to the three questions there? Paum89 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have so responded.--S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Service Badge! I'll try to keep it up to date. Paum89 (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dalip Saund

Hello Srich32977.

You keep reverting my edits to the article "Dalip Singh Saund". Please note that it is against the tennets of Sikhism for one to remove his/her hair. As Saund has clearly done this, it is factually incorrect to keep referring to him as a Sikh, and Patit is indeed the more correct terminology. I do not understand why you keep reverting my edit on this!

Thanks. Ikjyot Singh Kohli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjyotsingh (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ikjyotsingh, please see the comments I left on your talkpage.--S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark Hertling's German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency

I listed him as having this award from the photo found on wiki commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Army_53507_IMT_established_to_focus_on_new_recruits,_officers.jpg

Articseahorse (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Post his photo on his page and add the badge to his award listing. Then he can be listed on the badge article. (I don't know if posting the photo link as a reference is proper. But once his photo is available people can see for themselves. (And what I'll do is tag the badge article as US centric.)--S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I've reverted my removal of Hertling from the GAFB page, moved the awardee section (which is US only) and tagged section to globalize.04:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hide very relevant information about Keynes

You may edit style but DO NOT delete very relevant quotes from most recent criticism of Keynes in books by Lewis and Reisman.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.163.187 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. A further reply is on your IP talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Broken image links

Can you take a look at your edits to Fractional reserve banking? There are now two redlinked images. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I took a look and discovered that you had reverted the whole set of edits. Fixing the links was fine, but you reverted the other useful edits I had supplied. I confess I was lazy in not using the preview button (shame on me!). But my mistakes could have been fixed by restoring the hyphens I had converted into spaced dashes. In any event, these minor copy edits are restored and I did use the preview button to make sure all was OK!--S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Austrian School and Fractional Reserve

Hello. Quick comment as I'm in the midst of storm prep here on the New England coast. The reverts you made on two of my recent edits don't make sense to me. The cited sources do not support the statements in the articles. Please scrutinize the sources. Also those writers are very weak sources and there is a wide-ranging and cogent body of critical literature on banking and monetary economics from which substantive statements from academically and publicly recognized sources could be drawn. The fact that the German wiki site has not yet reviewed and expunged that one writer doesn't change the fact that he flunked the English language review process, as if there were any doubt that better sources could be found. Frankly, finding credible substantive critics of fractional reserve and critics of Neoclassical Economics is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suspect too many editors are either ignorant of the economic context or too lazy to click beyond what's linked and reprinted at the valuable but not comprehensive archive at Mises.org. I can discuss this further at another time. Meanwhile, I ask you to revert some of your recent edits, esp. my accurate quote from one fractional reserve critic, which you expunged. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you're wrong

What im saying is not incorrect. I went to the school for over a decade i know EXACTLY what is true and what is not about it. the nformation i put on the page is in fact constructive and informative. i will continue to put the information back on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.102.65 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you say this isn't constructive?

By definition, constructive is "serving to improve or advance." Advancing the public's knowledge of what General Ham is being ordered to do in the name of OUR United States and possibly being arrested for, is absolutely serving to improve or advance our knowledge of this American leader.

Who are you to disregard a constructive petition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.146.128 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

External links to online petitions are not permitted, even if for a good cause.--S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Whose rule is this? Is this a Wikipedia published rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.145.100 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Wikipedia rule. See WP:ELNO #4.--S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also see "Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

San Diego State University links

The entire "California Indians and their reservations" website was moved a year or so ago. In the time it takes to post a deadlink template, the link could be simply be updated. A-C is <http://library.sdsu.edu/guides/sub2.php?id=195&pg=193> and M-P <http://library.sdsu.edu/guides/sub2.php?id=195&pg=195>. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cheers back at you. Looks like the dead link tag functioned well -- you fixed it! And i appreciate getting the fixed link from you to use in the other articles. But tell me, what is the correct number at Cabazon? 38 tribal members v. 806?--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the SDSU numbers are up to date but they're the best I can find. Regarding Cabazon 38 is the number of enrolled tribal members and 806 is the population on their reservation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So is it save to say "reservation population: 806 enrolled and non-enrolled" perhaps "population 806 (enrolled and non-enrolled)"? E.g., do we have only 86 Cabazon members remaining, or are there Cabazon Indians amongst the 806? Or shall we post the question on the talk page?--S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Devereaux edits

Hi Srich32977,

I'm unclear which sentences/paragraphs you deleted this time. I'm concerned about not being allowed to include my Magna Cum Laude status from UCSD. How can I prove this to you? I have my diploma which states (through a special blue ribbon) that I graduated with Honors of High Distinction (aka magna cum laude) from the University of California, San Diego in 1984. I worked hard for that honor and earned that designation. How can I prove this to you? Please tell me.

Also, I am not the publisher of the Desert Star Weekly newspaper, but am the Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief. Again, I worked very hard to start and build this newspaper out of nothing and feel I earned the right to tell the public about my achievements. I'd love to speak with you on the phone or have lunch or coffee someday. Perhaps you can help me build my Wikipedia page to better reflect my extrodianary childhood and life.

Also, I had my 2nd Place Win for my script "House MD - The Perfect Storm" removed by someone. I contacted Scriptapalooza about finding proof and they apologized for not having it on the Internet any longer. I can forward you their email that proves I won that prize in screenwriting. Again, I worked hard for that win and feel I should be allowed to include it in my Wiki page.

Again, we need to talk to straighten out all your concerns.

Thank You for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope we can talk soon. You know who I am but I don't know who you are.

All the Best,

Jackie Devereaux

67.49.228.49 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please look at reliable sources about what is needed to verify information contributed to Wikipedia. As is stands now, much of the article is subject to editing/removal because there is no source that supports inclusion. WP editors do not do original research, that is we do not interview people or conduct experiments, etc. to find info. Such would be the case if an editor contacted you and asked for info about your career, etc.This is not a question of trusting or not trusting someone. The test is whether another reader could find the particular info somewhere, preferably info published elsewhere in a book, magazine, journal, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheap Dime A Dozen Hypocrisy

I was banned for personal attacks. This is a personal attack. Yet you are reverting it as if it has some relevance to the page (it doesn't). It can go on my talk page if LK wishes but he should be banned for this behavior if it continues. As you should if you revert personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.200.93 (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit referred to above was not quite what I had hoped to accomplish -- it was simply a mistake on my part. Further comments are on the 203.209.200.93 talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Srich, In light of the IP's confession above, I ask you to consider whether your continued engagement of its comments is appropriate? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not inappropriate in that every editor is free to contribute IAW WP guidelines. Also, the IP's comment may be based on a misunderstanding as to what I had tried to do, based on my own mistake. But whether continued engagement is worthwhile is certainly on my mind. I think I shall revert only the most scurrilous personal comments. --S. Rich (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am new at Wikipedia, but are you saying that "every editor is free to contribute IAW WP guidelines" includes the confessed sockpuppet of a banned editor? That is not my understanding. On a related note, I believe it is better to leave recent hostile comments in place on the talk pages and edit comments. They constitute part of the record and context for the article and may assist other editors or admins, in dealing with the IP's behavior.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP guidelines include restrictions on sock puppetry! If the user is a confessed sock, then the WP:SPI should be a simple process. Until the investigation is concluded, a suspected sock is merely suspected, nothing more. With that in mind, WP:AGF guidelines should apply. WP:TPNO says personal attacks are unacceptable and WP:TPO says it is okay to remove harmful posts from others' talk pages. (We do not edit the comments of others.) Is there a difference between insulting remarks and those which are merely uncivil? Yes, but my hope is to keep the commentaries focused on the article contents. ("IAW" = "in accordance with") --S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Srich. In case you are not aware of it, here is the link to the current sockpuppet investigation, in case you see fit to add to the record there.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karmaisking

War page editing

Hi Srich,

Why I cannot add the following on wiki page about war? "War is the supreme failure of bridging the differences between nations." - Jacque Fresco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radamanf (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco is an interesting guy and he's said many interesting things. But adding this particular quote has several difficulties. One, we don't add random quotes placed here-and-there in articles; two, we don't have a source from where he said this; three -- most importantly -- Fresco is not a recognized authority on the topic of war.--S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Carl Eytel

For FA, I think the amount of information is decent. The keys would be to expand the lead a bit and perhaps fine-tune the prose, perhaps find an independent copyeditor to do so. New eyes are never a bad thing on an article. Wizardman 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the encouragement. It took a year from start to finish for the GA rating. I'll keep you in mind, next year, for the FA review!--S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I'm just letting you know that there are no compelling reasons for assessing redirected articles as redirects. For one thing, the Redirect class for our school articles will only show as 'NA'. If the redirects correctly contain the {{R from school}} they can be tracked from the category. They are also on the watchlists of active members of the Schools project.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. My main motivation was clearing California stubs, of which the school redirects were included. Look at User_talk:Nyttend#deletion_requests for more information. --S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Gravel status

Hi, I just saw this comment of yours. As I'm the main editor of that article, I'd be interested in knowing why you think it isn't up to GA standards. (I know there are some dead links and I really should put in a separate Bibliography section, but I imagine you have additional things in mind.) Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Portions are waxing eloquent -- too eloquent. Here is an example: "On August 5, the Nixon administration pleaded for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel successfully blocked Stennis's attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held." I'd rewrite as "On August 5, the Nixon administration asked for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel blocked Stennis's attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held." Another one was "passionate advocate". Without looking, I wonder if the source said "passionate".

This portion is awkward: "In 1978, Gravel authored and secured the passage into law of the General Stock Ownership Corporation, that became Subchapter U of the Tax Code under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.[111][112] While that was originally done as a prerequisite to a failed 1980 Alaskan ballot initiative that would have paid dividends to Alaskan citizens for pipeline-related revenue,[112] it also turned out to be significant in the development of binary economics.[111]" Is the "GSOC" an actual corporation, or a provision of law that allows for the establishment of the GSOC? If the 1980 ballot initiative failed, then what happened? Was GSOC enacted so that a corporation could have paid dividends? I have no idea what this is about.

Because the article is long, and because I'm focusing on other, more gnomish endeavors, I'm reluctant to tackle this editing. Overall I really like the article and I made my comment so that a critical re-look could be made. It didn't take too long to scan the article and find these examples for your consideration, so I suspect there are more.--S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and I understand your not wanting to buy into a full-scale review. I will concede that I am among those WP writers who try to present a narrative that is a little more engaging to the reader; I do not believe that WP articles have to be dull as dishwater, which many are. But regardless of that, in your first case, the source reads "Despite a plea from the President today ...", so I think "pleaded" is justified. I have removed the "successfully" however as redundant. Regarding "passionate advocate", I've added a couple of sources which say his effort has been 'quixotic', which incorporates 'passionate' but also conveys he isn't getting anywhere, and I've changed the lead to that. As for the GSOC portion, going back over the article history, I see that I originally put in some of this, and the sourcing, at the end of 2007 ... but I don't remember it at all and have no idea what it's about either! I guess I've been here too long :-) Will have to dig further. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. You really do have an achievement and I hope it will improve to FA status. My one GA is Carl Eytel and it took me a year from start to GA, so I certainly appreciate your contribution -- and most engaging writing!--S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowbirds (People)

About my recent changes to the Snowbird page - do you think you can put the sources in for me? I don't know how and don't have time to learn. For now, I am enclosing the links to prove my assertions. In the links, you have to add together the low and high temperatures in each of December, January, and February - devide by 6 and presto - come up with an average.

According to the links...and assuming you properly perform the calculations - you'll discover that the historic mean (average) winter temperature in Discovery Island, Canada is 46 degrees (rounded); Atlanta, Georgia 45 degrees; Greenville, South Carolina 44 degrees; and McKinney, Texas 43 degrees. McKinney, Texas is officially a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth, Metroplex. Discovery Island, Canada also registers warmer winter seasons than Frisco, Texas - another suburb of Dallas.

Just remember that in the links, you're looking at the mean(average) temperatures. Calculate the mean temperatures (average between low and high) for each winter month. That's how meteorologists define a warmer winter season, and Discovery Island, Canada's historic mean (average) winter temperature is higher than all Deep South locations referenced above.

Here are the links to those sources:

Discovery Island, Canada (within Greater Victoria)

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/summary/cl1012475/imperial

McKinney, Texas

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USTX0861

Greenville, South Carolina

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USSC0140

Atlanta, Georgia

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USGA0028

So then...are you able to remedy? Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyepz4 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you want to contribute to Wikipedia. Here is a link to the tutorial for you to learn more. But see how I emphasize you? In other words, I do not want to carry your water. The other problem with your request is improper synthesis. That is, it seems you want to make a point about one particular location in BC and are selecting data which you hope will prove something. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. In any event, I hope you enjoy your editing endeavors. --S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Why don't you add the weather info about DI to the Discovery Island (British Columbia) article? But keep in mind that we do not make comparisons between one place or another unless the comparison is notable. For example, Death Valley often has weather extremes, so we can comment about those measured extremes, as long as they are supported by WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

dead link v. broken citation

Hi S. Rich. I believe that the Citation Broken template is for references that work, but are not specific enough as to where the information that is being cited is within, say, a web page or a book. Whereas Dead Link is for an internet site that is no longer available, which is used to alert people to the fact that the link to a website no longer works. In this case you were correct to replace it with Dead Link. I was merely going though broken templates as many don't support exact dates (e.g. 5 December) as they categorise problem articles by only month and year. If a date is included in the template it is flagged as broken in a special category. Hope this helps! Cheers Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

c-ten

hi I am writing to you concerning C-ten (Customized Transepithelial No-touch). I read your msg where you wrote that you didn't accept a page with a c-ten description. actually it is a tecnique no touch to make refractive surgery, very interesting to know it. please provide to put the description on wikipedia. thank you ~~Giovanna Greco~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.30.224.50 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Giovanna. You are referring to your submission to [Refractive surgery]] early last month. I removed it because the paragraphs regarding C-ten did not have a reference and because the language was very promotional. I also see that you set up a C-ten new article that was declined. Here is my suggestion, add the C-ten info to the refractive surgery article as a new section, make sure the language is not promotional, and use the two references from your new article in the refractive surgery section. Don't simply cut and paste the wording from the two sources. You need to extract the important parts and re-write it in your own, simple clear style. Leave a message here on my talk page for more help. And thanks for your contributions. You are new to Wikipedia, so it may take a few tries to get it right. (You can learn more at the tutotial.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

I'm afraid those last three articles aren't mine. Must be a different "Arthur Rubin". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone at IEEE has stolen your name. I shall delete.--S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)