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:

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]

1981 Irish hunger strike

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

Hi Rumping! Thanks for the welcome message! I wil try to behave well on Wikipedia and be a good boy. P.S. Squilton for men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.10.166 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

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?

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]

RE: 'Conributions'

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

Why *?

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]

Re: Large Hadron Collider

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]

Your Recent Edits to the St. John Ambulance Article

		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]

Typo.

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]

Odd

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]

Red Star Belgrade

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]

Astronomy versus Astrophysics

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

Speedy deletion of Template:LondonSE

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]

Londonderry

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

BioNice

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

Interval arithmetic

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]

Speedy deletion of Template:CPN tree

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]

Euro sign edit

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]

My typo

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]

Redirects to categories

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

Karan

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]

Ulong, New South Wales

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]

Integumentary system

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]

Advice about your signature

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]

uw-affiliate

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]

Request for comments

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]

Names of the Irish State

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]

Estadio Usach

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]

Sanctus Seraphin/Sanctus Serafin

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]

re: Your Message

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]

Nom nom nom

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]

Talkback

Hello, Rumping. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 23.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Puzzling edit

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]

Independent Schools Inspectorate

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]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

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]

Speedy deletion declined: Tilly Greene

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]

BLP RFC

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]

RE: SlimBrowser

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]

Clothed male, nekkid ladies

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]

Removed prod from Tim Buckley (artist)

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]

Lowgraded astrocytoma

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

2- i dont 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]

Skype

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]