User talk:BobKawanaka

"Men On The Moon"
I see that you have had recent back-and-forths with someone about "men" vs "people" on the astronaut Fred Haise page. FYI, if you would like to assist with this ongoing issue, I have posted the subject at WT:SPACE. Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MWP and Riesling
Please chime in at Talk:Medieval_Warm_Period --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and btw. here there be dragons Pinot Noir . ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Since you haven't gotten one of these before, i guess now is the time. Please be careful not to break this rule. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As an addition: use the talk pages, instead of editwarring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''I can't tell if you're deleting legit citations or linkspam. Can you please explain these 2 edits? Thanks! I assume you're aware of WP:V. FYI: I came across your edit while trying to figure out what to do WRT to HVAC Expert's edits' which seem to be well meaning but problematic.'' Elvey (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got your reply. Still not sure about your edits.  I mentioned WP:V.  A link to a commercial site that makes relevant information on the page verifiable is entirely appropriate on Wikipedia.  I'm going to go check the references tomorrow.  On the other hand, WRT:--Elvey (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)  Checked.  It's a borderline case; the the sources both support the article and feel spammy.  Better sources are certainly out there, so I think your deletions were reasonable.  Thanks for clarifying things.--Elvey (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One exception: this edit wasn't helpful.  See http://web.archive.org/web/20080121150015/http://wilcoxen.cp.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/804.html ; consider reading up on the WP:LINKROT, reverting your edit and using  .--Elvey (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Pedro Menendez High School has been reverted, as it appears to intentionally introduce incorrect information. Please do not continue to do this; such edits are considered vandalism. Thank you. Sitethief (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sitethief's complaint is nonsense. No Florida school was founded circa 20 B.C.E; I don't need to check any references to know that's absolute bollocks.  I have reverted his rv of your edit.--Elvey (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Menendez High School
I agree with you that its not vandalism. Apologies for that. However I think that the paragraph about Pedro Menéndez de Avilés on the Pedro Menendez High School page should be shortend to: It was named for Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, a sixteenth century Spanish admiral and pirate hunter. If people are interested in him, they can click the link to the article about him. I don't think its relevant to the Pedro Menendez High School article. Sitethief (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Octopoida
Mikko's page is where I originally found this name. Some of the references he lists are not available online, so that might explain it. I assume Octopoida was Leach's original spelling published in 1817, which he changed/corrected a year later (much like the giant squid genus Architeuthis was originally spelled Architeuthus). It's a taxon name (usually derived from Latin) so the similarity to German must be coincidental. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ptolemy
Claudius Ptolemaeus was a Roman citizen, as evinced by his nomen gentilicum (Claudius). Calling a Roman citizen "Roman" is not contraversial or OR, just as calling a British citizen "British" or a citizen of the US as "American" is also proper - irrespective of what their ethnic origin may be. See Roman citizenship. See also the examples of Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon, Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus, and Claudius/Aelius Galenus - all ethnically Greeks but citizens of Rome (moreover, all held office within state or local government). See also just about any figure from the Imperial period, many of whom were not ethnically "Roman" or "Italiac", but are properly be called "Roman" due to their citizenship. Thus for example Titus Flavius Josephus (Jewish) and the emperors Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta (all of north African/Berber descent), Elagabalus and Severus Alexander (both Syrian), Maximinus Thrax (Thracian), Philip the Arab (obvious...), and Diocletian (Dalmatian). Why are these citizens of Rome to be termed Roman, but not our Claudius?

Also, there is some debate regarding Ptolemy's actual ethnicity: it is not certain whether he was ethnically Egyptian or Greek. Calling him "Greek" is thus not an absolute. Please read the discussion page. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See new lead: "Roman (of Greek or Egyptian ethnicity)". Unfortunately, there's no other way of satisfactority summarising his nationality/ethnicity. Any more becomes an essay. If people read "Roman" and get the wrong idea, then that's unfortunate. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must strive for accuracy ("Greek OR Egyptian", the question's not settled) and consistency (Dio, Arrian, Plutarch and Galen are also called Roman on the strength of their citizenship. See also, for example, Barack Obama, an ethnic African (and more) but listed (correctly) as American). As it is written now, what's known (nationality) comes first and what's still questioned (ethnicity) comes second.


 * Also, I don't think that any reader would come away from the article without having picked up that Greek learning had A LOT of influence on Ptolemy's own corpus. Cheers. Catiline63 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your next edit to Ptolemy will breach Three-revert rule.Catiline63 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Please do not start an edit war on Efficacy of prayer by removing fully referenced quotes. That statement is logically valid and Wikipedia policies do not discriminate against writings by young people, specially if they are very smart people. The reference needs to remain there. If you are unhappy, please seek mediation, for I am one edit behind you and if a war starts you will cross the 3 revert line first. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fearsome Critters
The spelling of Leprochaun is not a misspelling of Leprechaun; however, rather the spelling of its American variant (See . Pg.17, The Leprochaun . "Fearsome Creature of the Lumberwoods") as I have before mentioned on the Fearsome Critter talk page.

Tripodero User talk:Tripodero 2:22, 02 July 2009 (UTC)

Still Adherents

 * I agree-- but if others do not agree, this issue can be posted at Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for their input, and/or their informed opinion at Talk:Catholic_Church. --User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New MyCeliacID Article
Hello,

I've rewritten an article for MyCeliacID a saliva genetics test. The previous 2 articles that I've posted have been deleted, so I'm seeking help from more seasoned Wikipedia editors. Would you be able to give me some feedback on the work I've done so far? The article is currently posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EGOeditor/MyCeliacID. --EGOeditor (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sumatriptan is more effective than aspirin once a migraine is already established?
Can you provide any evidence for your assurance that "sumatriptan is more effective than aspirin once a migraine is already established"? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking
I'm going to try and put back some of the links in the article on limestone that you removed on the grounds of "overlinking". I suspect you over-reacted; I'm not entirely sure why you think that an article on limestone should not link to Notch Peak, a named mountain in Utah used as an example of a "spectacular rocky outcrops and islands" in the article. On the opposite side of the spectrum, linking to the article on caves might seem to you to be "obvious", but people who are reading an article on limestone are very likely to be interested in geological topics, and since limestone cave is just a redirect to the cave article, I had to make that link. I am familiar with the guideline set forth in WP:OVERLINKING; I've double-checked there and I hope you will too. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

successive insertion
Hi BobKawanaka. You inserted the unit 731 and the seciton name Racism and Anti-Semitism successively. I don't want to think you have anti sentiment. Why did you iserted again and again? There are 2 questions. 1. Unit 731 has already writen other section, why did you write again? And If you want to insert the 200,000 casualties, show the evidence. Was there Atomic bombing test? 2. Your inserted section name is not suitable, what is racism? Do you know Japanese foreign minister is korean during the war. Japanese army had more than ten korean generals. There were Korean Representatives both House of Representative and House of Peers. Japanese Princess married with Korean prince. I don't know Jews had seats in German parliament. Did Hitler's family marry with Jews? I don't know African people had seats in Congress before the war. Did President families Married with African before the war? If you stick to write such things, you should write other countries, too.--Bukubku (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life movement‎
I left you a message on Talk:Pro-life movement‎. CarolineWH (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Campini's jet Boat
Whether campini's boat used air or water propulsion it is still an example of Internal propulsion and it is still a Jet Boat and it worked in 1931. have you considered that? Are you totally impartial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's not. Internal propulsion in a jet boat means that the water is sucked into an impeller and expelled (out the bottom of the boat).  Campini's boat is a jet engine, just as in a plane, mounted on top of a boat ... there is not internal about this in reference to the jet boats of the article internal_propulsion.  Hope that helps. BobKawanaka (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Campini's jet Boat
Campini jet Boat worked in 1931. And whther it used air or water for its jet, it is still a WORKING example of internal propulsion and of a jet boat. have you considered that.

Similarly Enrico Forlanini's Helicopter is the First WORKING Helicopter that took of carrying a pilot under its OWN POWER. That had not been acheived before

Altes2009 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not change your Helicopter edit. I agree with those that did, but I did not change it. BobKawanaka (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake on apsis ratios in Orbit article
In this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbit&diff=320076098&oldid=320065491 you assert that the ratio of b/a for the earth is 99.99% It is more like 96.9% in reality. I've removed it. Where did you get this from? Does the error occur elsewhere? Thanks. --NealMcB (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a mistake -- 99.99% is correct. See Talk:Orbit for details. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Warnings
I notice that you restored the warnings on user talk:166.173.251.120, but unfortunately, he does have the right to delete warnings on his own talk page so I am going to have to ask you not to keep restoring the warnings that he deletes. CLCStudent (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is important to document warnings, but according to wikipedia policy user:166.173.251.120 has the right to delete warnings on his talk page. CLCStudent (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Restoring warnings. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Your recent editing history at Grunge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization  Talk   19:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_do1XF9cyJ8YJTG5&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)