User talk:Rumping

Welcome!

Hello, Rumping, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Dweller 11:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on the talk page and revert your edit. There was more than one attack, see the March 1978 details. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not obvious from the Dirty protest article --Rumping 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rumping! Thanks for the comment re "essay" . I am the original author on this. Any idea how to fix the "multiple issues" condition? (Rodclarkeca (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have reinstated the redirect from List A cricket to Limited overs cricket. The reasons are given in the edit notice. It seems you think the number of links to the stub justify keeping it but this is not the case. The fact is that it was a stub that was not being expanded and it was superfluous to the main article, which encapsulates all its content.

We do not keep articles for the sake of it. If anyone searches for ListA they will immediately find all they need at Limited overs. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect was wrong, since there were substantial incoming links and the content was not in the target of the redirect. I also think that you were wrong to repeat the redirect a second time when you knew you didn't have consensus. At the very least you should have merged the content. --Rumping 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please speak brighted.Ps.Do you know gag?212.122.214.173 21:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing to your recent vandalism [1]--Rumping 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never noticed that; anyway it isn't my writing in the first place :) HarrisonB - Conributions 08:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rumping. How's that you caught that so quickly? These categories are odd things to have on your watch list. At any rate, I was trying to have all 5 subcategories of People from North Holland to show on the first page. Currently only Zaanstad is on the second, and, despite the warning that other subcategories may appear on other pages, I find it very likely that people assume that the four they see is all there is (and subsequently categorize people from Zaanstad as "People from North Holland", think someone is not in wikipedia, etc.). Any idea why the subcategories are spread over the pages and how else one can avoid that? When the number of members is large, a subcategory currently may be completely obscured. Afasmit 15:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for vandalism, though I accept your changes were not. I also spotted the issue you raised - you wmight want to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Large categories and subcategories --Rumping 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Large Hardon Collider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.50.88 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I did not. Distorting my message on your talk page [2] hardly adds to your credibility. --Rumping 23:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For doing what I've meant to do but never found the time to, and probably doing it a lot better than I ever could - restructuring the St. John Ambulance article to take the emphasis away from the order of St. John, and towards the society as it actually operates now. Thank you. TheIslander 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that typo. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ceaser" is suprisingly common --Rumping (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the Talk here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.167.255.202#Dec_2007

Wonder what is up with that IP... It *did* used to be .gov, but now it seems to be just another Sprint IP... Proxy User (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. --Rumping (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing you have been involved in the previous RM discussion, I thought you might be interested in this one too, cheers. BanRay 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion here. WilliamKF (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:LondonSE requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fixed now -- thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very elegant.[3] -- SEWilco (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please move the text that is in German into your userspace, such as User:Rumping/Interval arithmetic and translate it there? We are feeding complaints from people about the article being in another language and as this is the English Wikipedia there should be no other languages in any articles. Thanks! -Pilotguy contact tower 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly translating this in parts, but if somebody else wishes to contribute, I suspect that they are more likely to find it at the current location. If somebody removes the remaining German text then they are free to do so, but that would make it less likely to ever be finished. Moving it to userspace would be too much of WP:OWN in my view. --Rumping (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, unfortunately, I've read your message on my discussions not until today. I've read your translation and corrected a few minor things. From my point of view, you did a very good job! Regards Alexander Dreyer (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind remarks. I suspect there may be more issues, as my German is extremely weak, and although I understand mathematics in general, Interval arithmetic is new to me - which is why I tried to translate it. --Rumping (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Thank you, too. (Never found the time to do the translation myself.) I think you got the things right. Maybe, one could clarify one or two things. (It's a hard subject.) But, one should wait for the contributions (and discussions) of other users. I'll have another look at the article, after some time. --Alexander Dreyer (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:CPN tree requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion applies to this case then there must be a better alternative template. What is it?--Rumping (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your contribution to the euro sign article [4] — there was nothing wrong with your edit, but I just want to point out that neither Wikipedia nor the world is under any obligation to adhere to the EU's "specifications," as discussed on the talk page and in the article itself. The official logo form and the accompanying rules that the EU thrust upon the Eurozone are discussed and illustrated generously, and a well-rounded article on the sign would feature the actual adaptation of the thing. Which has nothing to do with rules, but with how typographers and shopkeepers are creating the sign.

It's just getting tiresome that people keep changing the article into that old EU press release. SergioGeorgini (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the EU rules are absurd, but given they exist, it just seems sensible to be closer to them if there is no cost of doing so. --Rumping (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching it; I did 1000 redirects yesterday, and one typo is probably not to be unexpected. :-( Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, already spotted and fixed, manual cleanup underway too. Rich Farmbrough 22:48 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Just an FYI, but this wasn't a CSD candidate. The original content got written over. I reverted it back. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Rumping (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ulong, New South Wales, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Ulong. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the bot is confused. Look at [5] and [6]. I moved content from a disambiguation page to an article. --Rumping (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe making this a redirect to "skin" is appropriate since it is synonymous with "skin" (see the footnote on that article). Also, all the content of that article is found elsewhere in other skin articles, so no information is lost. What are your thoughts? kilbad (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be about 500 incoming links[7]. To me this seems to suggest that given people could have linked to the easier Skin, there might be something worth saying about Integumentary system or variants of that word. Some of this may result from skin being seen as an organ, while integumentary system being seen as a system, plus the use of templates. I find the footnote in Skin rather argumentative instead of encyclopedic. As a more general comment, your method of destroying before rebuilding is not how I expect Wikipedia to be edited.[8] --Rumping (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems Skin appendages or adnexa such as hair and nails are part of the integumentary system but not part of the skin. Animal scales are other examples.--Rumping (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me apologize for causing any problems. I certainly only wanted to improve wikipedia, not worsen it.

• With regard to the Integumentary system and Skin, I believe these two terms are synonymous. If you look at the first chapter of James, William; Berger, Timothy; Elston, Dirk (2005). Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology (10th ed.). Saunders. ISBN 0721629210 the authors clearly define the skin as (1) all its layers and (2) adnexa. Lookingbill (one of my favorite derm texts, see my user page for full reference), also states "The skin has four general components, the epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous tissue, and appendages." Therefore, it would seem, the term "skin" includes the adnexa (i.e. glands, hair, and nails). However, I will be honest and say I cannot comment on "animal scales" and I am a dermatologist, not a veterinarian. With this being said, perhaps we could merge skin into "Integumentary system" and redirect it that way?
• As far as the content of the Integumentary system article, almost all of it is found in other derm related articles, with citations (see the epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous tissue, and appendages for example); therefore, perhaps we could remove the redundancy, and link to those other articles? The disease section is another example. It has a very short list of diseases and uncited, poorly written content. We could simply add "see also" links to skin disease and list of skin diseases? As it is now, the integumentary system article has no citations, along with some misinformation.
• With regard to the integument redirect, this term is not synonymous "Integumentary system", as it has often been used to describe, for example, the capsule of a virus (a concern which as been brought up by other users). Therefore, perhaps we could remove the redirect and add a disambiguity page?
• With regard to the skin type redirect, in dermatology, skin types are divided into (1) glabrous skin and (2) hairy skin. However, as it currently is, skin type redirects to Human skin color#Skin tone variability. Therefore, perhaps we could make this its own article discussing glabrous skin and hairy skin (and skin tone if you like), or make it a disambiguity page?

Overall, I simply want to improve the current state of dermatology related articles found in wikipedia, hence why I started WP:DERM. I appreciate all the work you have done, and hope we can work together to sort some of these issues out. Thanks again for your input! kilbad (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the rational given above, would you be ok if I made some of the changes I outlined? kilbad (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I thought your edits at Skin and Integumentary system were more unhelpful than helpful. It seems others agree.[9] --Rumping (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the following code for your signature since you apparently don't want a userpage:

--[[User talk:Rumping|Rumping]]

This code will display your username, and when your username is clicked, it will take users directly to your talk page. Many users who do not want a userpage use that type of signature. Please note that you will have to check the check box "Raw signature" in order for the code to work properly. Users can change their signature at Special:Preferences. -- IRP ☎ 21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any problem actually caused by simply redirecting User:Rumping to User talk:Rumping? --Rumping (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at WT:UTM#New template: uw-affiliate. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have commented there. --Rumping (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Is a bit long, but can you comment at Template_talk:Euro_adoption_future#I_propose_to_change_the_name_and_the_structure? It will be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not particularly worried either way on that template. --Rumping (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently reverted an edit where I reverted a user trying to insert the following into an article: The state's national football team, while often referred to (including by itself) as "Ireland", officially plays as the "Republic of Ireland" because Northern Ireland also fields a team in international competitions and in 1954 FIFA was no longer prepared to tolerate two teams called "Ireland". Can you help me understand why you believe that this is relevant in the article? It appears in the "official description" section, but it has nothing to do with the official description. Is there some dispute over the description and you're using the football team as an example of something? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the national football team which plays its home games in Dublin is the "Republic of Ireland". It is the representative team of the state which has its capital in Dublin, so its name is relevant to the question of the name of the Irish state. In fact the point was in the article before you were "bold" twice today[10][11] though I do not think your edit summaries fairly described what you did.--Rumping (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for responding. I don't see any problems with my edit summary. I've continued the discussion on the Talk page. BTW, looking at your other edits in this area, I think they're pretty fair. Hopefully we can reach an understanding on this point - I'm open to understanding why the point is being made - perhaps it just needs a little more work. Thanks again. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted that article because that stadium is abandoned about 4 years ago, no professional or even amateur team plays in there,the information writed is wrong, too, S.Morning has not play a single game in there since 2004 or 2003 they play in La Pintana, but if you think, that it shouldn't be deleted... my mistake.Bye Kyosukekun (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. Next time you think a page should be deleted, rather than blanking a page, you should try using the methods at WP:AFD or WP:PROD. You may be correct, but after what happened at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haman Stadium on a minimal article, others might not delete it. --Rumping (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your copy-and-paste move of the article. You might like to read WP:MOVE --Rumping (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reverse the order. The correct spelling of this maker is Serafin not Seraphin. Thanks in advance!Milliot (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put a request at WP:RM. But it seems clear that his name in Latin was Sanctus Seraphin (as he wrote on his violin labels, e.g. [12]) while his name in Italian is Santo Serafin(o).--Rumping (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rumping, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, A7 does not cover songs. A9 would be more applicable. But in this aritlces case, A3/A1 would have been even better options.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I thought albums were excluded though not songs. --Rumping (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 is only for real people, organizations, or webcontent. Books/Songs/albums/movies/plays/etc are not covered under A7. If you want to see some excellent resources on this, take a look at The Field Guide to Proper Speedy Deletions or Why I hate Speedy Deleters.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this edit puzzling. After the edit, the article no longer identified Robert Langlands and Diana Shelstad as the people that the concept was named after, and no longer linked to orbital integral and a couple of other concepts, and no longer began by telling the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. Also, where I had put G(F), with the G and the F properly italicized per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics), you had G(F) with no italics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd too. I was trying to move a full stop before references and may accidentally have edited an old version. I am not attached to the content. --Rumping (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rumping! This article which you have edited or contributed to, concerns an important feature of UK Education. It still needs some urgent attention. If you can help, please see Talk:Independent Schools Inspectorate regarding how it may be improved. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 13:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rumping. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tilly Greene, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Others have contributed; also article has been kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilly Greene. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding the pointer to the AfD in your speedy edit summary - I would probably have noticed the AfD when I looked at the history, but just as well to be sure. I have restored the article to the version before it was blanked, and pointed her to WP:BLP/H if she is not happy with it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you think best - [13] suggests others' contributions were tidying rather than substantial. --Rumping (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Q&A might be useful. Maurreen (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Clarifying myself -- To be most effective, please voice your input at one of the closing proposals, as explained in the Q&A. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is incomprehensible. There are too many proposals and places to express opinions. Closing proposals don't actually help here. --Rumping (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. If it is not improved, it could end up being deleted via another process. You should check the deletion log and see if the listed reason could use some improvement. - Rjd0060 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I have reduced it to a less ad-like summary and then added the new point. --Rumping (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit, changing it back to a DAB. I also did the same with the other. Clothed male, nude female and Clothed male nude female. Not that I'm terribly passionate about it. If I had my druthers I'd make both redirects to CMNF. Feel free to give me your views--might as well on this your talk page as this is an anon IP I'm using. Cheers.70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, and what you said is fairly meaningless anyway - you had a choice ("druthers") and apparently you chose to do the opposite of what you think best.--Rumping (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the proposed deletion tag from this article because PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions. Not only has the article already been through one deletion discussion (see here), which would automatically make it ineligible, but based on this discussion people are still currently objecting to its deletion. If you still believe the article should be deleted, please bring it to AfD, thank you. -- Atama頭 04:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Feel free to sort the problem out. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Buckley (artist) says (February 2007) redirect and merge to the webcomic Ctrl+Alt+Del. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del says (March 2010) get rid of this article, Redirect to the keyboard combination Control-Alt-Delete. It would clearly be insane to redirect Tim Buckley (artist) to the keyboard combination, and the consensus seems to be that he is not notable beyond the webcomic, and that the webcomic is not notable, but nobody has agreed to delete Tim Buckley (artist). My prod was designed to complete that step, but no doubt you can find a better way.--Rumping (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to AfD, since the information was previously merged to another location, which was then deleted. Please feel free to comment there, thanks. --Taelus (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- please use talk page before making changes ... because in busy creating pages in all kind of brain tumor-relate d subjects

2- i don't mind you making this change but then the title of lowgraded astrocytoma should be adapted too, so that the page doesn't become orphaned --DerekvG (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we are both content with the current position. I was patrolling short pages. Usually I aim to revert them (in case of vandalism), expand them, redirect them, or propose them for speedy deletion. But at the time[14] there were only 28 characters and they did not mention astrocytoma or brain disease. Next time, you might consider leaving a red link, or put in a stub until you are ready with a full article.--Rumping (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I'll keep an eye out for whats doing it. Thanks for the heads up. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I just disabled the plugin, and to be honest, I've always found it quite annoying. Thanks for noticing it... Oskilian (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting my problems with Firefox Skype extension! Thank you very much indeed. I am sorry for not keeping an eye on it before. ellol (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rumping. You removed my deletion. I think 'Athletics Federation of Pakistan' should be accurately and specified described by own article. Montell 74 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you see someone's redirect you do not like, you have some options, including:

1. Redirect it somewhere else
2. Write an article (even a stub)
3. Raise it at Redirects for discussion, suggesting it is deleted

but blanking the page is not really an acceptable option.--Rumping (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland), also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for telling me, I was completely unaware of this. In future, I will remember to disable the Skype extension on Firefox before editing articles. I really appreciate you telling me. Thanks. -- Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SKYPE PLUGIN FOR FIREFOX NOW UNINSTALLED - many thnx --Yoga Mat (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cheers for that. i got an auto warning from wikipedia that skype was interfereing so i´ve disabled it now :) --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto ditto. aruffo (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recommending that the article on Bracelet (combinatorics) be merged into Necklace (combinatorics).

I saw that you had previously edited one (or both) of these article. You're invited to participate in the discussion here: Talk:Necklace (combinatorics).

Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked whether the two stations whose articles you recently merged were really one even although their existences did not overlap, but the resultant article is confusing for if they count as one why are they in different districts? Readers should not be puzzled.--SilasW (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Road and Devonshire Street railway stations were the same location (naturally on the corner of Globe Road and what was Devonshire Street), and at some stage used the joint name (see [15]). As for Mile End or Stepney, I simply merged the articles. I would say it was in both, and that Mile End was part of Stepney. But feel free to choose whichever you prefer. --Rumping (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butt does not suggest that they are the same station. Normally, in such cases, he uses the code "RO & RN new name" on the old station, and "RO & RF old name" on the new one. In this case he doesn't; there are separate entries for Devonshire Street, Mile End (p. 79) and Globe Road and Devonshire Street (p. 104). I am also concerned that a cut-and-paste move/merge has been performed; what should have been done was that one article should have been moved to the new name, and then a WP:FMERGE performed. However, whatever process was used, it should really have been discussed first: see Help:Merging. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly in the same location on the same track where Globe Road and (former) Devonshire Street meet. Before we had Devonshire Street railway station and Globe Road railway station with no link to the combined name, despite maps and other mentions of the combined names. So I was bold and merged them. Since this is Wikipedia, you are of course free to undo what I did in the WP:BRD tradition.--Rumping (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I had no clue the Skype extension did that. I've disabled it, as I never use it. --Limetom 05:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I too had no idea that Skype would do that. --LittleOldMe (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Rumping - thanks for pointing that one out. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion to address the redirects associated with Titin. Since you edited one or other of the redirects at some point, or discussed it on one of the talk pages, I wanted to notify you of the redirect discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I was only cleaning up vandalism --Rumping (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this edit - six decimal places is likely to be too precise. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision, in which it is stated that 0.000001° is approximately equal to 11 cm of latitude, or to 5.57 cm of longitude at a latitude of 60°. Railway stations can be several tens of metres wide, and several hundred metres long. A precision better than 10 metres is therefore unnecessary; this roughly corresponds to 0.0001°, four places of decimals. Most railway station articles use an accuracy of three or four decimal places. Also, by constructing the {{coord}} template in that manner, the coordinates show near the bottom of the article; to match other railway station articles and show upper right, at least one other parameter is needed: the essential one is |display=title --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. The Anome did [16], so I did [17] and then you did [18]. I did what I thought was easy to improve the article. You did too. So everything is fine.--Rumping (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for pointing something out. Not that I have the foggiest what you might be talking about. I don't intend to be rude, but since I merely reverted what I assumed to be a vandalism, I do not claim responsibility for introducing that part - just for restoring it. Didn't even notice the skype-thingamagummy. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The combined effect of the anon's edit and your undoing it can be seen at [19]. The Skype text seems to have arrived during your edit. It is typically caused by people that (a) use Firefox and (b) have a Skype add-in which highlights telephone numbers. You may also have seen a warning contained at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-skype which suggests how to avoid the problem in future. If you don't have Firefox or Skype then I apologise. --Rumping (talk)

Re {{subst:uw-skype}} - you've not served one on me (mainly because I don't have Skype, in turn because my telephone works without it...), but today I've seen you use the message on other talk pages. I have occasionally had to fixup bad edits caused by Skype, as here, so I would have used the template on that user if I'd known about it... have you thought about getting it added to Template:Singlenotice/inner and also to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Single-level templates? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about it, but given that Special:AbuseFilter/313 was supposed to deal with the problem, I didn't follow through then. I have now.--Rumping (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BTW there's no need to copy the above back to my talk page - when editing my talk page you should have seen this message: I like to keep conversations in one place - it causes less confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I keep it here it looks as if you are stalking me (see above) ;) --Rumping (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not WP:STALKing: I noticed it with this edit - I have that user's talk page on my watchlist, because I have left messages there in the past, one or more of which remain unresolved. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The whole thing looks far too complicated, but if this tool is helpful, I may use it.--Rumping (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on top of the vandals to this page, and I'm new and have no idea how to proceed. I can't even figure out to what version it should be rolled back! Thanks for whatever you can do. Bearhair (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? --Rumping (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please note that the page concerned is under a 1RR editing restriction, if you are unfamiliar with what this means you are advised to request clarification before making any edits to the article. It's probably best to resolve any disagreements on the article talk page before adding contentious text. By the way, this notification goes to all editors on the relevant articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting then those controlling the article remove relevant referenced information from that article and then use this notice to warn off those they are challenging. You might consider the four points at the start of the essay on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. In any case, you have succeeded in driving me away from that article for a period, as has happened before. --Rumping (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia policy is to minimise the use of copyrighted material, and therefore having three practically identical images violates at least two of our policies, image overuse for obvious reasons, and replaceability because the working of the scrollbar can easily be explained in the text (which it is). They probably also fail the necessity clause for the same reason. Similarly, there is not a POV issue because the issues are clearly explained in the text. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that analysis. I think there is a POV issue if we use five logos rather than twelve, given that (as BrowserChoice.eu states) the majority of the remainder have already complained about being almost invisible. The images are not "almost identical", since the key copyrighted elements (the browser names, logos and descriptions) are very different. More seriously, this should not just be about creating reasons for applying CSD criteria, but should be subject to a proper discussion in a proper location. --Rumping (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion should either take place on the talkpage or at a Files for deletion discussion for the two other images. Our non-free image policy is very clear here; non-free images are not used unless they are minimal, necessary and non-replaceable. Please do not re-instate the additional images without explaining exactly how they meet these three criteria of WP:NFCC (1, 3a and 8) as required by the policy page. Also, it is not Wikipedia's place to pass judgement on the rights or wrongs of an argument between MS and other companies, only to report that such a disagreement exists. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think I started something at Talk:BrowserChoice.eu just before your message, and you have already responded there. It may not be for Wikipedia to pass judgement, but it is for Wikipedia to provide background information in an NPOV manner, and in my view a single screenshot does not.--Rumping (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solved after discussion at Talk:BrowserChoice.eu by creating an animated gif which puts the information from the three screenshots into a single image at File:BrowserChoice.gif--Rumping (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Re: Your comment: "but it is in existing reference". Could you point me to the exact minute (I presume you mean the Melbourne DVD?) that supports the reference to Dracula. And, if it does, it will need to be reworded to clarify whose interpretation it is (Meat Loaf's? the director's? "Meat Loaf says that some people have interpreted..."?). I own the DVD that you claim supports the statement and will be able to verify it immediately. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about Dracula; I am looking at the four things he say he will never do. They are clearly in the existing references (currently #8): the middle of [20] and the bottom of [21]. Do what you like to Dracula. --Rumping (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you meant the lyrics. Yes, we had to remove some because one of the reviewers thought we'd quoted an excessive amount. I'm not so bothered about that. I'm more concerned about ensuring that everything is referenced correctly, without original research. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on CA-Cricket Presents requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly - it was a stub to replace a redlink. But it doesn't really meet the CSD criteria and is a fairly harmless though potentially useful article.--Rumping (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why me?--Rumping (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 12:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rumping! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Red Gulch/Alkali National Back Country Byway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byway (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) 15:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect London Conference of 1838–39. Since you had some involvement with the London Conference of 1838–39 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Rationale: "Treaty of London (1839)" has never been referred to as "London Conference of 1838–39". Pdfpdf (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a London Conference in 1838 and 1839, and it led to to the Treaty of London (1839). That is good enough for me. Redirects are cheap. --Rumping (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Bermondsey by-election, 1909, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South East London (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) 15:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could have gone to any of the three linked pages and if you were not a bot I would suggest you choose--Rumping (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-skype has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICIONS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE!!! THE ONLY WAY THINGS WILL CHANGE IS WHEN THIS KIND OF EMAIL TRANSLATES INTO VOTING AT THE POLLS. PENSIONERS OUT NUMBER ANY OTHER TYPE OF VOTER BY RACE RELIGION OR AGE,WHEN WILL PENSIONERS WAKE UP AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE POWER TOSHAPE LEGISLATION.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH US WAKE UP BRITAIN!!!THE COUNTRYS BROKE AND CANT HELP OUR OWN OAPS,VETERANS,ORPHANS,HOMELESS ECT;??????? BUT SPENT 1.2 BILLION FOR G-20 EVENTS,AID TO INDIA,GREECE AND TURKEY. AND NOW PAKISTAN,AFGHANISTAN,BILLIONS OF TAX POUNDS. RETIREES LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME RECEIVE NO AID WHILE OUR GOVERMENT AND RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS POUR BILLIONS TOTHE WORLD OVER. NOW THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN PAYING INTO THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM FOR YEARS NEED THE MONEY THE GOVERMENT TELLS US ITS RUNNING OUT AND WE,VE GOT TO WORK LONGER BECAUSE THE BANKS HAVE GAMBLED AND LOST 75% OF THE PENSION FUNDS. WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WERE PROMISES HAVE BEEN BROKEN THE YOUNG ARE LET DOWN THE HOMELESS ARE WITHOUT SHELTER,CHILDREN GOING HUNGRY,MIN WAGE FAMILYS IN DEBT TRING TO SURVIVE,THE UNEMPLOYED BEING SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THE JOBS ARE NOT THERE,THOSE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE WAGE SCALE,PENSIONS AND JOBSEEKERS UNABLE TO PROVIDE BASIC HEATING AND LIGHTING BILLS . A COUNTRY THATS 1.3TRILLION IN DEBT WITH NO POSSIBLE WAY OF PAYING IT BACK BECAUSE OF BAD POLICYS,2013 THIS IS NOT WHAT I WAS LED TO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE LIKE,SAD IS IT NOT. I WONDER WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE IF WE GOT THE SAME SUPPORT THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE GIVEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.240 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you sent this to me? Or why it is in capitals? --Rumping (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raising of Jairus' daughter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No need for separate article (info can be included in the Miracles of Jesus article), per WP:BKD.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgian-railway-routemap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pilot Season (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources are TV.com and IMDb, neither reliable. Show was too short lived for any media attention

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reverend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect ProTEXT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 § ProTEXT until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]