User talk:Robert M Johnson

Comments, Discussions, Criticism, etc.
I saw your message that you had created an account. Welcome to Wikipedia! And no worries: hey, if you didn't like the template, you didn't like the template. But I hope that you enjoy it here! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

G1 Userbox
Thank you for your note. No problem, glad I could be of help! - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Aeolipile
Hi. I am trying to maintain my cool in response to your edit summary "Replaced sloppy quote (spelling errors, etc.) with a more direct, and accurate quotation." as I have been guilty of similarly inappropriate phrases before now myself. If you check the reference (which has not been altered) you will find that the text matches exactly what I had entered. I know this to be the case because I cut-and-pasted it from the Project Gutenburg website myself. Could you provide a reference for the text that you used, please?

EdJogg (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Thayer's English Translation of Book 1 chapter 6.2 of Vitruvius: On Architecture  Check it out. It is by far the most recent and accurate, and it is the most-logical choice from the existing English translations: It's a direct translation of: 2. ventus autem est aeris fluens unda cum incerta motus redundantia. nascitur cum fervor offendit umorem et impetus calefactionis exprimit vim spiritus flantis. id autem verum esse ex aeolipilis aereis licet aspicere et delatentibus caeli rationibus artificiosis rerum inventionibus divinitatis exprimere veritatem. fiunt enim aeolipilae aereae cavae. hae habent punctum angustissimum quo aqua infunduntur conlocanturque ad ignem, et antequam calescant non habent ullum spiritum, simul autem fervere coeperint, efficiunt ad ignem vehementem flatum. ita seire et iudicare licet e parvo brevissimoque spectaculo de magnis et inmanibus caeli ventorumque naturae rationibus. (from the Latin Teubner edition of 1899 by Valentin Rose)
 * Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture, apparently translated by committee, edited by Ingrid D. Rowland and Thomas Noble Howe; Cambridge University Press, 1999.
 * Vitruvius: De Architectura, translated by Frank Granger; Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1931.
 * Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture, translated by Morris Hicky Morgan; Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1914.
 * The Architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, translated by Joseph Gwilt, London: Priestley and Weale, 1826.
 * The Architecture of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, translated from the original Latin by W. Newton, Architect, London: Dodsley, 1771 and 1791

Also, sorry if my edit summary came off as rude. The information (above the direct quotation) was presented very poorly, and there were indeed spelling errors. - Rob talk 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response re Aeolipile
The only edit I made to this article is in the discussion of the physics of the device, not in any direct quotations of original latin description. At least there is no reference to such a source, and I would find it curious if an early source already knew about Newton's laws and rocket principles. The only reference is to an online science encyclopedia with a treatment that is rather low level. The discussion of the physics was inaccurate and with some poor language. For example, it is not the nozzle that generates the thrust, but the expanding steam exiting the nozzle, the nozzle only serves to increase the exit velocity of the gas. I could cite more problems, but I think you must be referring to another editor's changes. Kbrose (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Autrey
I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Wesley Autrey article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow..... a TEMPLATE to "show concern." I followed all instructions with my nomination. It couldn't have just been left up? Let it fail? Nothing wrong with failure. Its part of the learning process. How am I to "learn" anything from this event if some loser with no life removes it before it even gets a chance? At a box-car derby, you don't tell the child with a car who obviously won't win that he cannot compete. You are ignorant. - Rob talk 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the template expressed what I wanted to say more clearly than if I had written it out. Letting it fail is not a good idea here because it would have wasted precious reviewer resources. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also appreciate it if you used more constructive language rather than write me off as "a loser" and "ignorant". Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Persons, like yourself, who become involved voluntarily in "policing" the Wikipedia (for no purpose other than personal gratification) are sad. I find it to be very depressing that you do not have any real hobbies, and instead fill your "empty spaces" with the Featured Article Candidacy of Wikipedia.

I'm sorry for entering your CAVE and "wasting" your "precious resources." (which you waste anyway paTROLLing Wikipedia). - Rob talk 03:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wiki Bot" Owners
Your "contributions" to the wiki, from my personal experience thus far, have been nothing short of automated attempts at removing valuable (albeit, uncited) information from the eye of the general public. If a human being were to perform the same analysis of your bot(s), one would clearly realize that this "help" is in fact a nuisance in many situations. Robert M Johnson (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tepeticpac
Sorry if I came off too trigger-happy or aggressive in tagging the article. I added the expand and reference tags because a large portion of the articles that I see on New Page patrol are not touched again for a while, and usually by newer users. In the future it might be beneficial to add the reference with the article initially; I'm not the only one doing new page patrol, so anyone could add that template. Also, I'm not a bot. :P As for the threads above this one, those aren't bots either but editors using automated programs, such as WP:TWINKLE or WP:FRIENDLY. I don't know if you already knew this stuff or not, but it doesn't hurt for me to explain it if you don't. Have a nice evening, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am more than aware of these "Automated browsers," because I find the automated wiki community annoying, and I have looked into ways to avoid conflict. A bot performs actions much the same way a "user" (utilizing an automated browser) would. They are all "bots" in my opinion.- Rob talk 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But, they aren't bots. I'm confused by your opinion. WP:TWINKLE/WP:FRIENDLY are just scripts that allow users to perform manual, tedious tasks much faster, like inserting maintenance templates for instance, or tagging files for speed deletion. I suppose I can't argue your opinion; it is yours. Hopwever, I do find it quite confused. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I find, both users who use scripts to edit the wiki and bots (and their likeness) to be annoying since "edits" are made usually without a human being judging the actions (IE adding things to a page within 60 seconds of it being created). It is not difficult to understand. - Rob talk 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe that applies for bots (and I would still hesitate to agree), but not the scripts I have described. For instance, I used friendly to tag the article you created with the aforementioned tags. I used judgement, as I described above. These scripts merely made my job faster, allowing me to get more done. I don't wish to argue with you over this, as it seems we are at odds. However, thank you for describing your view point, and happy editing. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With the keyword in my previous statement being the word "usually", my statement is still valid. Simply since your judgement was, in your own words, "trigger-happy or aggressive," I merely assumed your actions were a bit more automated than what you claim.

Can you honestly tell me that you checked to see when the page was created? Or did your script skip all of that "judgement" for you? That is the lack of human being judgement I am referring to.

Many users like yourself contribute to the Wikipedia using scripts, and many of them simply prevent valid (though sometimes uncited) information from reaching the casual individual browsing the wiki. In my case, however, an automated script triggered a red flag for tagging seconds after I had created a page, giving me little time to add the proper citation.

Perhaps if you enjoy tagging articles, you might like to browse newly created pages that were added a bit more than a few seconds ago.- Rob talk 06:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't check, no, nor did I say I did. I knew it was a new page, created seconds earlier, and I knew that when I tagged it. When I tagged the article, it did not have any references on it. I tagged it, as I said above, because I have seen many new articles go by that remain in the same condition that they were in when they were created, so I tag ones with obvious problems that so the problem will eventually be remedied. As for your article, one that fixed the obvious problem early, how was I supposed to know that you were going to add a citation? I merely took a preemptive action that was unecessary, but harmed no one. I would be quite surprised if tasks such as reverting vandalism, removing articles/images that are clearly fail CSD, or tagging articles with maintenance templates for later improvement being made easier by a bit of automation really impairs the editors or the readers. As I said, I don't wish to argue, as we are obviously at different points of view of here. Thank you for clarifying your point, and have a nice evening. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Robertmjohnsonuserimage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Robertmjohnsonuserimage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved... Damn wiki nazis. Robert M Johnson (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:LCHS.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LCHS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow... the owners of these "wiki bots" need to lay off. Robert M Johnson (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Tlaxcalamap.jpg
File:Tlaxcalamap.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Tlaxcalamap.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this bot is utilized to lighten the load on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what the bot has done so far, other than uploading a copy of the image to Wikimedia and overwriting any source information submitted with the original upload. I don't see this going well, but I will give it a fair chance. - Rob talk 02:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

IP vandalism
If you have a problem with the procedures laid out at WP:VANDAL then take it up there instead of littering my talk page. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I stated before, I am more than familiar with Wikipedia and its rules/guidelines (while you clearly misunderstand them). It specifically states USER, not IP address.

"If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page." - Rob talk 10:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LCHS.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:LCHS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Strange... the "image" was still linked to a page until 13:09, 9 July 2011 when CommonsDelinker claimed it had been deleted, and removed the link.

The image itself was deleted before the link to the image on the page was severed, so this "orphaned" issue is some sort of bot malfunction. - Rob talk 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rytlock's Critter Rampage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shockwave Flash. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RytlockBoss.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RytlockBoss.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A comment on your user page.
Your comment on your feelings about Purdue Calumet made me smile a smile of reminiscing. I attended both IU Bloomington and IUN (aka Gleason Park High). Math is not my best subject and I failed intro Calculus twice in Bloomington. Got an A at IUN. Yup...spent most of the semester on polynomials, a subject I learned in 8th grade. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ugh what an "experience" that was. My user page actually hasn't been updated in quite some time, and I only just today updated my age, which was last updated six years ago. I never did finish that semester at Purdue Calumet, as I formally withdrew from my courses as I had predicted. I ended up working full time to support myself while pursuing my CompTia A+ and Net+ certifications to work in the IT field. The nail in the coffin for my pursuit of the degree from that "university" was the Java Programming teacher. To summarize.... I was basically paying thousands of dollars for a foreign woman to read lines aloud from a textbook (which I was perfectly capable of reading myself... with a much higher rate of comprehension, mind you) in her broken English. There wasn't ever a moment where we had any hands on learning (where we would actually touch a computer during class) during the short amount of time I was enrolled in that course either... which was something I had been used to while studying other programming languages. I should have just stuck with it, but I was rebellious and had a serious problem with authority back then. You know.... "I won't be part of the system" and all that. It was a very expensive waste, having such a superiority complex. Anyway... my userpage is old and outdated, so don't form any notions about how much of an insufferable know-it-all prick I am. I've pretty much "grown up" since I created the page... but thanks for reading just the same. - Rob talk 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Pharrell Williams page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=756588585 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F756588585%7CPharrell Williams%5D%5D Ask for help])

April 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Acid Rap, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Moving copying content from one page to another requires attribution, generally in the edit summary. However, it is generally preferred to request a page be moved over a redirect rather than replacing the content. Additionally, in this instance, it doesn't appear that Acid Rap needed to be moved; the hatnote was taking care of the disambiguation and the capitalized version does not appear to be an ambiguous term, even by your edits. acid rap, arguably could be changed from a redirect to Acid Rap to a redirect to Esham, so I've made that change and updated the hatnotes. Ost (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Journal-article title
Regarding [this edit] of yours, when I look at 10.1080/01635581.2016.1224366, I see an article entitled "Sucralose Non-Carcinogenicity: A Review of the Scientific and Regulatory Rationale". Are you seeing something other than that? DMacks (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the discovery of sucralose-6-acetate during metabolization is inconsistent with prior claims.
 * "Two acetylated sucralose biotransformation products were found in urine and feces of rats dosed with sucralose (Bornemann et al. Citation2018), and this finding is inconsistent with the historical claim that sucralose is stable and excreted unchanged (i.e., not metabolized) in the intestine."  10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903
 * As I am sure you are aware, a person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. This later, and more recent study has simply discovered something that had yet to be discovered.  Robert M Johnson (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)