Richwil

Welcome!

Hello, Richwil, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw your recent edit to the intro to QM article. Thanks. You might want to take a look at some of my comments on the Discussion page for that article. I've been stumped in trying to edit parts of it that another contributor wrote because I can't figure out what the intended meaning might have been. I don't feel like scrapping what is in some of the later sections because I don't have anything ready to put in their place. Right now I am stuck on Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. Most of the popularizations I've seen have been unsatisfactory. I have been looking for the tables of data he was really working from in the hope that I can make the "magic" a little clearer. Telling a reader that pq is not equal to qp without mentioning that p and q are matrices just isn't being helpful. I think I've got enough info to go over that part of the paper once more, but until I get past it (and my compulsive hammering away at something that could probably be cleared up in a few hours if I had Heisenberg's notebook or data tables), I probably won't do much with the rest of the article.

I really think it is important to give young readers the clearest and most concrete way into difficult subjects that can be managed. Fudge factors and magic wand waving seem totally unhelpful to me. Anyway, I'm glad for any help you can provide in clearing up the muddy writing. Thanks. P0M (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Patrick - well, you know the saying about QM... if you think you understand it then you don't ;) QM is obscure (and widely abused Sokal) so it's no surprise we have difficulty trying to explain it.Richwil (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Heisenberg can write about the obscurity of QM without being a bad writer. Bad writers can write about what is not problematical and make it obscure. The problems I see with the writing is that I can't figure out what the writer was trying to say. When other people write about the same subject the information is clear and they make it clear where the problems are. Feinman is a good example of nice writing. He can elucidate the nature of the paradoxical findings.

I've recently figured out what was going on with the matrices. In that case most of the people who have written about it have tried to make things too simple. The worst case instance is where somebody just says something like, "In QM, xy is not equal to yx." They leave it at that, not even explaining that matrices are involved. P0M (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice Irvine DFMO edit

How did you get info on DFMO in cancer prevention on the DFMO page so fast? That was a nice edit. I wrote a post about this on my website, if you care to check it out. --Dr.michael.benjamin (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael - it came up on news-medical.net as a surprising and potent new use. Thanks. My primary interests are ageing and Alzheimer's rather than cancer - if you hear of any opportunities for a mature, final year PhD theoretical molecular biologist, do let me know :) Richwil (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac

I have reverted your edit at Fleetwood Mac. As the note explains, the article is written in British English, and band names are plural nouns in British English, and most forms of English other than American English. Saying "No it isn't" doesn't really change that. Hidden notes are there for a reason, not just to be ignored, and it would be better to use the discussion page if you're not sure. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both singular and plural forms are used but in my view, as an Englishman, a band name is a collective noun referring to a singular entity in the same way that a company name is singular. I like to be flexible and can see that "Editors" and "The Beatles" fit the plural whereas "Iron Butterfly" and "Pilot" do not. "Fleetwood Mac" seems to me in the latter category. The Grauniad assertion that "bands take a plural verb" is moot and clashes with their other claim that "Company names are always singular" and they muddy the waters with: "Nouns such as committee, family, government, jury and squad take a singular verb or pronoun when thought of as a single unit, but a plural verb or pronoun when thought of as a collection of individuals...".Richwil (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please don't mark edits minor when they aren't. Adding a citation needed or dubious does not qualify has a minor edit. Please read Minor Edit for more information. Note the point "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article". Citation needed and dubious are tags. Therefore, they don't qualify. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that - i shall be more careful. Surely the proposition that everyone dies in the end is a tautology? (smiles) My serious point would be that we could do with more investment in healthier old age. 46.208.100.52 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical editing

Hi Richwil, I undid one of your recent changes at Alzheimer's disease. Wp:MEDRS calls for secondary sources such as review articles. You cited recent primary research, and in a mouse model at that. There is a vast and rapidly growing literature on AD. We can't arbitrarily choose.whIch bits to use. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I disagree and have stated my objection to your reversion on the talk page of the article.Richwil (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (July 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Graeme Bartlett was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Richwil, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

(t) Josve05a (c) 10:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Richwil, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! (t) Josve05a (c) 10:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Richwil. 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)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Richwil. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Richwil. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)