User talk:RodC

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Vandalism on Linus Pauling
I'm not actually certain about the procedure re vandalism in WP... What should be done?

Also, not certain version you reverted is unvandalised.


 * Interestingly, the Caltech Chemistry Department, wary of his political views, did not even formally congratulate him. However, the Biology Department did throw him a small party, and one cannot help but think that they were more appreciative and sympathetic toward his work on mutations caused by radiation.

Is this NPOV? --192.146.136.129 21:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Possibly not, but this is a different discussion, probably something to be discussed in the article's talk page before deleting. In the versions we were reverting Linus Pauling's name was being replaced by "Martin Something". That's vandalism, to be dealt with immediately. What procedure are you uncertain of? RodC 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (Above was me. Didn't have time to log on...) Now that the article's been protected, I suppose it doesn't really matter.--Fangz 22:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Copan
Hi. I noticed you removed over half the text of the Copán article without explanation. Was this some sort of glitch or accident? I didn't see any reason for the major removal of material, so I reverted it. -- Infrogmation 04:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Infrogmation, it was an accident in fact, and I didn't notice it. Thanks for reverting. I was editing one section and for some reason it replaced the whole article. In fact I don't know how I managed to do this -- maybe a Wikipedia glitch?
 * Whatever the case, it looks good now, thanks for your attention to it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English language quotations should not be italicized
(Re: your recent changes at Marie Antoinette), the Manual of Style is extremely clear that English-language quotations should not be italicized (although foreign language quotations such as "Vive la reine" should be). Could you please fix this back up yourself? My browser a lot of problems with editing large pages, and this would take me half of forever. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you had checked the article's history you would have noticed that I didn't italicize any quotation -- I've only replaced the "curly" quotes with inchmark quotes. As a matter of fact, go to this old version of Marie Antoinette, edited by you, and the italic quotations are there! ;)
 * I can fix the uncalled-for italics, in any case, but not right now, as I'm really calling it a day and going to sleep. :) Cheers. RodC 03:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Had to take decisions on some vague points like the bad markup in the "Motherhood" section. Please check wrt Wikipedia's manual of style. RodC 02:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant Corners
Imagine my surprise to find that celeste links to an article on a stripper. In any case, thanks for correcting the link, but are you aware that the original liner notes as well as the album itself, spells celesta "celeste"? A quick search of an online music dictionary appears to list celeste as an alternate spelling. I was just wondering if you knew the history behind why they originally spelled it "celeste". Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to thank you for your help. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Style edits to Robert Moog
What timing. You must have made the exact same style edits as I had just seconds before me. :) Hall Monitor 17:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for beating you to it! ;) RodC 17:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Cesare Pavese
I have added the titles of the complete works, in cases where these were missing, but cannot add the dates as the edition I am working from does not list them! --Paw42 14:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Crimbo!
Have a Proper and Merry Crimbo. , in fact here is a pressie from the Doctor to you. Ho. Ho. Ho! Dr. McCrimbo 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was you
In redirecting Cola di Rienzi to Cola di Rienzo, or something, you seem [let me know if it was not you] to have wiped out the long and illustrious history of that article. If that is the case, do you think that you could fix it? Carptrash 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was not me. I just created the original (Rienzo->Rienzi) redirect. The user Attilios apparently copied the contents of the Rienzi article to the Rienzo article, making the opposite redirect (Rienzi->Rienzo), which is bad practice. The illustrious history is still there at the Rienzi article in any case. RodC 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony Ray-Jones
In this edit of yours, you give Tony Ray-Jones a date of birth that's quite different from the one given in apparently careful bio (informed by, inter alia, TRJ's mother!) in the 1990 book published by Cornerhouse. Perhaps that's wrong and you're right -- what would your source have been? I'd be grateful if you'd reply at Talk:Tony Ray-Jones. Thanks. -- Hoary 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Multi-instrumentalist
Hi. Please don't be offended (as some have been to the point of personal attacks) that I've reverted your edit to Multi-instrumentalist in which you added Hermeto Pascoal to the 'some noted multi-instrumentalists' section. This is because I'm trying to keep the list on that page to a bare minimum of artists (preferably trimming it to 15 in the future) to encourage people to just use List of Multi-instrumentalists instead. The list on the main article should be small, as it's just supposed to be examples of artists who most people think of when using the term 'multi-instrumentalist', not an exhaustive list. --Stevefarrell 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Zen?
I'm puzzled by this. If Bash&#333; was more than trivially concerned with "zen" (and I really don't know), shouldn't the article reflect this? And if he wasn't, why so categorize him? -- Hoary 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good point. In any case, I didn't categorize him, I've just reordered the categories that were already there. RodC 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You did? I should have had my first coffee of the day before making that comment. Sorry! -- Hoary 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lucia Moholy
Isn't she a centenarian? I was just going by the birth and death dates in the article, but a Google search seems to confirm that they are correct. Recury 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * She was born in 1894 and died in 1989, which would make her 105 when she died. Recury 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mixing my numbers around, you're right. Thanks. Recury 13:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

December 11
I just noticed that you added *1910 - Noel Rosa, Brazilian songwriter (d. 1937) to the December 11 page and marked it as a minor edit with no edit summary. I'm guessing that this was inadvertent, and I've made a dummy edit with a helpful summary. If it was intentional, I'd be interested in your reasoning. Matchups 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Matchups. Nothing serious, just another name in an already long list of births and deaths. I've been marking this sort of edit as "minor" for years. I'm probably wrong! Cheers, RodC 14:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New AfD on LoPbN
Your recent and helpful work on the LoPbN tree suggests you'd support its retention. At this moment, vote is 10 Del to 10 Keep on Articles for deletion/List of people by name (2nd nomination). I hope for a clear consensus to keep, and would appreciate it, if you care to weigh in. Thanks in any case, and happy holidays. --Jerzy•t 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Stevie Wonder-Journey.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stevie Wonder-Journey.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman
I see you have a history of working on the article Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman. I am looking at it from the project Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest unreferenced tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give.  Birgitte SB  17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil
I´ve seen that you wrote in the article arguing that perhaps there was a POV with monarchist propaganda. Could you please tell me which part of the text you believe has issues? Thanks! - --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello RodC! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jaguar (cartoonist) -

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
You are not the first to change "royal" to "real". The present day Brazilian currency had its origin in the Unidade Real de Valor (Real Unit of Value) used as a transition currency from the old Cruzeiro Real to the new Real. But the distant origin of the name in Brazil came from the old currency that existed until 1942 and was a symbol of stability before the time of high inflaction. It came from Portugal and was derived of "Royal" not "Realism". If you want to add "Royal or Real" to the text, is one thing. But to simply remove a historical fact is another. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "O segundo estágio, que começou em 1° de julho, foi a introdução de uma nova moeda, o real. A escolha do nome era ambígua (podia se referir à realeza ou à realidade)." (Source: Skidmore, Thomas E. Uma História do Brasil. 4th ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2003, p.311 ISBN 8521903138)
 * Translation: "The second stage, whoch started in 1st July, was the introduction of a new currency, the real. The choice of the name was ambiguous (it could refer to both royalty and to reality)."

There it is. --Lecen (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

British Civil War listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British Civil War. Since you had some involvement with the British Civil War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)