User talk:Anrnusna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Anrnusna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Anrnusna, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Anrnusna! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford Journal of Archaeology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicholas Purcell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Journal of Archaeology[edit]

Hello Anrnusna,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to slightly expand your article citing relevant references. Hopefully, you'd like my little effort. I'd appreciate your say on this. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hammar experiment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • for the aether wind.<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Lodge, Oliver J.|title=Aberration Problems|journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A]|volume=184|year=1893|pages=727–804|doi=10.1098/
  • 3. He saw no shift of the interference fringes, corresponding to an upper limit of <math>\Delta v<0.074</math> km/s.<ref name=ham/> These results are considered a proof against the aether drag

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Whitham equation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | journal = [[Proceedings of the Royal Society A]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Linking Proceedings of the Royal Society B within citations[edit]

Hi Anrnusna, I see you've been adding wikilinks to many instances of this journal and others in different articles. Just to let you know, it is not Wikipedia policy to do this, and while it has sometimes happened in the past, there are other editors (not me) who go around removing such links as errors. In general, there is no need to make a link to something that is well known and established; and links inside citations are certainly deprecated. Another point is, if you are doing this on behalf of an organisation outside Wikipedia, then you have a conflict of interest (and could possibly be spamming), which of course is inadvisable. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chinese Academy of Sciences may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of China]], the academy publishes the [[peer-reviewed]] [[academic journal]], ''Science China'' (also known as ''Science in China''. ''Science China'' comprises seven series:<ref>{{cite web | url =

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Journal names in citations[edit]

Please consider my comment on long journal names and the comment Template_talk:Infobox_journal#ISO_or_NLM_abbreviation_of_journal_title.3F. My preference is brevity, but I suspect the limiting factor is people's attention, so that long journal names in citations may distract from the journal article itself, and annoy in Wiki articles with a lot of references. Correcting journal names where they don't match the official journal names, the ISO abbreviation or the NLM abbreviation is welcome. RDBrown (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't replace Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U S A.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA since the latter is not an NLM or ISO abbreviation.
This means that PubMed searches using that as journal name may fail.
NLM Catalog entry RDBrown (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. The ISO abbreviation on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America page appears to be wrong. According to the NLM catalog, the ISO abbreviation is "Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.". The NLM abbreviation is the same, but without the full stops (see [1] and search for the full journal name). I will correct Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America and my mistakes. --Anrnusna (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to use AWB please replace those abbreviated names with the full ones. Even this seems controversial, and AWB should not be used for controversial tasks. However I will give more chance to use it wisely! Thankyou. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned by this edit (and whevever else you've done it). As far as I can tell the correct reference is still the full name at the date of publication, or an abbreviation of such. See the source [2]. Can you explain your reasoning? --99of9 (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)