User talk:Rrenner

Welcome!

Hello, Rrenner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , vaya SqueakBox 16:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox (Richard): Sorry for the delay in answering. I had not realized I had a discussion page until my communication with Bcatt about Mayan Languages. Thank you for the links to introductory materials. r3 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan Languages

It appears that when I intended to remove something small, I actually removed a large portion of the article by accident. I will fix that immediatly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. bcatt 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, restored the deleted material. Please take a look and tell me if I missed anything. Sorry about that. bcatt 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bcatt. My faith in good faith is restored. The Mayan Languages page still needs some work. The language tree does not have the languages grouped or organized in the most informative structure. Also, there is more information in the world about the available writings in these languages. The fuller descriptions could give readers access to this rich culture. r3 04:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, but I really don't know anything about Mayan languages at all! I had just noticed that an anonymous user had gone through a lot of pages and vandalized them, I was trying to work my way through their list of "contributions" and remove any that had not been caught by other users. However, it sounds like a very interesting subject and I will do some internet research and see if it's something I have a capacity for. bcatt 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus, Ohio

This article seems more a news article than an encyclopedia article. Would you consider moving it to Wikinews?
In order to be usable in all Wikimedia projects, and since you took it and allow its (almost) free use, you can upload this image to Commons.

--Julián Ortega - drop me a message 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to Portal:Politics/News

The information on Current events was updated to include some attendance totals and additional info, and I copied it over. Please note, though, that somewhere along the line, a discussion has to be to be had as to which of the related events is most notable. While there is room in the article space for as much information as is notable, infoboxes have to be condensed. As a result, there has to be a decision made by the community as to which is most notable, not simply whether or not it is actually notable. --DMG413 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the best thing to do would be to start an article linking from the current events page and other relevant pages. The article should have a fairly condensed title that people might actually search for - something along the lines of March 2006 Immigration law rallies and cover it from an encyclopedic view, not that of a news article. If you don't have a lot of experience starting new articles, you might want to take a look through a few of the policies first, particularly NPOV, NOR and What Wikipedia is not. --DMG413 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitesimal

I am a bit confused by your addition of the Infinitesimal#Infinitesimal calculus section. It just repeats the calculation at the previous "History of the infinitesimal" section. The point has been made in that "History of the infinitesimal" section that calculus with infinitesimals is not rigurous, I see no reason then for your section where you repeat the same thing. Wonder if you can comment on that, you can reply here, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that my calculation was a repeat of the one in the "History of the infinitesimal" section. However, I believe the big-0-dot notation makes infinitesimal calculus accessible, and even intuitive for students who want a practical understanding. In any event, my section did not survive its first hour. It was removed with this comment:

Lethe (Talk | contribs) (rv: the weird circledot notation notwithstanding, this material is mostly correct, though it mixes nilpotency with infinitesimals. could be a useful addition to the article with more context)

r3 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But again, what you are doing is just replacing dx with that strange O and repeating the earlier section. And how do you know that that strange O squared is zero? I think it is not, things are more subtle than that. Anyway, I agree with the material removal by Lethe. I think you mean well but that section was not right the way it was in many ways. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about my candidacy

Hi Rrenner. I answered your questions on meta. Un abrazo! --Zuirdj 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, thank you. Excelente, gracias. r3 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

I noticed on your userpage that you work for NPR. To your knowledge, have they ever done a piece on Wikipedia? --Daniel Olsen 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=20061110 07-44-53albinopeacocks.JPG-Are they really albino?

I believe that the "albino" peacocks in your photo [1] are not albinos but genetic mutations [2].Frankyboy5 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Thank you. I corrected the photo description. r3 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donations

Greetings! I noticed you had asked a question about where to send a check. The mailing address is on the donations page on the Foundation wiki, but I will add that to the FAQ. Thanks, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Drinking Water Act

Greetings! I noticed some edits on the Safe Drinking Water Act page on whistleblowers. While important in and of itself, there does not appear to be a justification in the text section you wrote as to why this information is so important with regards to the Safe Drinking Water Act and why there should be a link farm to a host of whistleblower orgs. Was it the first piece of legislation with a similar provision? Has it been used widely or notably? Cheers, Kristan 14:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SDWA was not the first US environmental law with an employee protection (the Water Pollution Control Act, also called the Clean Water Act, was). However, the employee protection is a key part of the enforcement scheme. In my experience, too many employees don't know about the employee protection. They still think they have to do whatever the boss says, and they then play along with unhealthy illegality. When more employees know that they can refuse illegal orders, and report violations, with legal protection for their jobs, then we are all going to have more security in our drinking water. It is especially important to include information about the unusually short time limit to initiate complaints -- 30 days. Too many people find out after this time limit has expired. The SDWA is unique in that it allows the recovery of exemplary damages for violations of the employee protection. I wish all environmental laws had this provision. r3 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Philadelphia photo

You wrote: Do you really think the photo of parked cars is a better first impression of New Philadelphia, Ohio, than the photo of Tuscora Park? Why? r3 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rrenner-- Wikipedia's guidelines for image placement advise placing images "near relevant text." A photo of amusement rides in a park doesn't really make sense at the top of an article about a city. It does make perfect sense next to the portion of the article which describes that park.

As for making "a better first impression" of the town, that's not really Wikipedia's mission. I think the picture of High Street does a fair job of describing a typical view of the main street in the city's downtown. (It's inevitable that such pictures in modern times would include automobiles, and I don't think they overwhelm the picture in this case, particularly considering the percentage of space they occupy within the frame of the photo.) I think a picture of the streetscape of a town's "Main Street" (or similar thoroughfare) functions on Wikipedia similarly to a picture of a downtown skyline in an article about a larger city. So I think the placement of the picture in question (which, for what it's worth, I find neither particularly flattering nor unflattering) is appropriate in this article.

Best wishes--Malepheasant 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trival dumb movies list.

This is the quickest way to settle the matter - I have AFD'd the article - make your case there. --Fredrick day 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dumbest_Decisions_in_Movie_History. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Previous interactions with the nominator would not be grounds for me to weigh in on this AfD. AfD consensus usually arises from editors involved with the article and the folks who spend time going down the AfD list and jumping in on the ones that catch their attention. As an aside, I agree with those pushing for the article's deletion. --EEMeltonIV 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "cross-posting," you mean that I was making links to the page I had just created, then I was doing so for the purpose of helping interested readers find the rest of the Total Film list at Dumbest Decisions in Movie History. I did so before the new page was submitted to "Articles for Deletion" (AfD). I did not intend to use cross-posting to influence the debate on AfD.r3 00:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming other editors who have had previous problems with User:Fredrick day. Past conflicts with the nominator is not a valid reason for cross-posting to uninvolved editors, asking them to comment at the AfD. You are attempting to corrupt the AfD process. Please don't do it again. Sarah 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:20080627 21-17-09josephlowery.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:20080627 21-17-09josephlowery.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2007012711-15-23gregcoleridge.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2007012711-15-23gregcoleridge.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rrenner. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060301 13-21-26palmbeach.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:20060301 13-21-26palmbeach.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 09:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.JPG

File:20060326-14-19-44michaelcoleman.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Michael B. Coleman.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Michael B. Coleman.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:20061110 11-42-22canillaplaza.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:20061110 11-42-22canillaplaza.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		To Rrenner, through your work we can see what we missed at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Thank you for your photos! Both funny and serious. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of March 20, 2010 anti-war protest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article March 20, 2010 anti-war protest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 20, 2010 anti-war protest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shii (tock) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006-05-20 16-16-23conotton.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2006-05-20 16-16-23conotton.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rrenner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rrenner. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Conotton Creek trail bridge repair.jpg

The file File:Conotton Creek trail bridge repair.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Workplace Fairness

The article Workplace Fairness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

strains notability, promotional

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]