User talk:Rico402

Welcome!
Hello and

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any
  articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism
  , and will result in your account being blocked.

Hi Rico, I like the edits you have been making to The Dark Side of the Moon. But I think you need to check the format of your references. "Ibid." is not used at Wikipedia, because the software has a better, automated method of combining references. You do this by giving the reference a name, like this:

<ref name=dvd reference></ref>

Later, when you want to give the same reference to another piece of text, you enter:

<ref name=dvd/>

In the reference section, it looks like this:

1. ^ a b reference

where the "a" and "b" are links to the 2 places in the article. "Ibid." doesn't work because it won't make sense if someone adds more text and other references inbetween yours; the "ibids" will then seem to refer to their new references.

Also, you have more than one reference to the DVD, with different "author" names in front of them; I think you are referring to the person you are quoting, but that person is not really the "author" of the DVD, and I think the format is wrong. You should probably mention the person you are quoting in the body of the article, and only use the name of the DVD in the reference. This way, you will be able to use the one reference for all quotes.

You can find out more about reference formatting here (but it's a long read, and actual examples are mostly split off into other help articles):

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Last night I changed all 3 renames that I was objecting to, back to their previous names. No brouhaha so far. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. There are still many articles that call him Rick (these are old edits); tonight I changed some of them, but I think I will stop for now, probably continue this later. There is at least one older album where he is called Rick in the credits, so I'm not disputing he has been called that on occasion, but since he uses Richard professionally most of the time, and it's the name he used on his solo album, I think that name should be used everywhere for consistencey, except of course for quotes and news article titles; we have to leave those as is, even when they call the band "The Floyd". I also notice a lot of articles badly need fixing, where songwriter credits are improperly formatted. Some articles have wikilinked names repeated over and over; more stuff to fix another day. I remember you told me about the Edward Van Halen thing before! I would support an effort to change it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Van Halen, the page must be moved, not copied / pasted, in order to retain its edit history; this is a Wikipedia requirement. I put a notice on the talk page asking if there are any last minute objections, so we should wait before attempting again. When we're ready, try using the "move" tab at the top of the article. If it doesn't work (and it may not, since the redirect page has been edited by several people), we may have to request an administrator to do it. This is done at this page:

Thanks for the tip. Yeah, I realized after I had renamed the page that it was gonna screw with the links to and from the page. I was a little freaked and went right to my watchlist to "undo". I guess bots would have fixed it, but was relieved to get out without looking too wikignorant. (Bots did fix the redirect edits before I got to them.) Rico402 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the

Edward Van Halen redirect page was not edited. It's been 24 hours; want to give it another go? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not knowledgeable enough nor of a frame of mind at present to attempt it myself, but please, be my guest; you have my full support. Rico402 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted, it can't be moved because of the disambiguation page. I have made a request at Move Requests (see link above). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a Pitt-related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Pittsburgh and the Pitt Panthers. 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! CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rico402, thank you for your corrections in the

I was delighted to read your firm response to Celebration1981 on Britannica...until I got to "If you had attended university you would know that. As usual, you know not of what you write." He's not even pretending to attempt to follow NPOV guidelines, he's not staying anywhere near on-topic, but if we are going to get anywhere with him (which might not be possible), we have to be the ones who are staying clean, so that if we ask for a third-party review, it's clear who's being reasonable and who is not. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I have been appropriately reprimanded. Shame on me for letting emotion get in the way of informative discourse. Many apologies from me for not holding to a "polite" tone. No hard feelings I hope. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think you'll find the next post more appropriately worded; I was careful not to inject any venom. Rico402 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much so, thanks!Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered Celebration1981 at the Electric motor article, where he insists that Jedlik (of Hungary) invented the electric motor and the electric car in 1828. His edits have been in the same style as at the article you have been maintaining. Nationalistic claims are jammed into Wikipedia which give credit not found in other encyclopedias or in reliable histories of the field. Good editors can be worn down by the constant insertion of references which cannot be verified. Please take a look at Electric motor. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen what he's been doing over there. The BIG problem I've had with him is on the

History of Television. He maintains that Kálmán Tihanyi is the "sole" and "official" inventor of electronic TV. His Talk page comments are just outrageous. Now he's up to similar tricks with regard to the Electric motor and Transformer pages. Time I could use improving articles is constantly squandered correcting his edits or trying to talk some sense into him on the Talk pages. At this point I don't know else what to do except compile a list of violations (which I've begun) and report him to an admin. Rico402 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well I'm nominating it at

WP:FAC now. Wish me luck :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thank you for the message on my talk page. As per the

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi.

I've restored the italics on

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...

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk | 21:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

(Sorry for the delay, busy week...)

But it is restrictive, at least in reference to some things. Under "

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.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]