User talk:Frmatt/Archive/1

==Just so it exists==

Ambulances and Star of Life

I've replied to your comment at Talk:Ambulance.

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MCI

Starting an Mass casualty incident page would be very helpful, thank you. I finish my first year of medical school in a week, so I will be able to help you much more after then...AZDub (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass casualty incident

Were you the one who tagged this article with a worldwide view tag? If so, I'd appreciate it if you left a note on the talk page about why you tagged it, and how you would improve it as opposed to just tagging it. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, 'twasn't I. That tag is on the Talk page, and I've never contributed to that page. - Hordaland (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: FILE: USCG EMT.JPG

Thank you for bringing this up. That is something that I hadn't ever thought of. The thought that goes into a photo that is seen so publicly is very important. You definitely had a good point here. I'll look for something that doesn't depict a victim like this. Thank you again. Bluedisk (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mean arterial pressure

I reverted your addition to blood pressure, partly that there is specific section on this in the article already, but mostly because your definition was wrong. Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) is the average pressure over a cardiac cycle, but as systole is shorter than diastole, it is not the mid-point of diastolic & systolic pressures. Instead MAP is generally taken as one third of pulse pressure up from diastolic pessure David Ruben ^Talk 23:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The User Block Process

Hi there, and welcome again! I thought I'd stop by after your comments on my talk page and let you know the standard procedure for getting an account blocked. Obviously, this is a last-resort decision and it's standard to try to encourage users to stay, not chase them away. Many vandal-appearing edits are actually users whom are unfamiliar with the process or policy. As a result, Wikipedia has a pretty common way of doing things.

Whenever you revert an edit that seemed contrary to Wikipedia policy, either intentionally or not, you should also post a warning on the user's talk page. Generally these will be escalating levels of notices:

First warning: Often called "general notice" to avoid making the user think they did anything terribly wrong (which, in most cases, they haven't). An example of a general notice template that might be used for vandalism is {{Uw-vandalism1}}. Note that this template is very light and, while it points out that something was undone, it doesn't do it in a harsh enough tone to scare away the user. This is intentional.
Second warning: Often called "caution." Again, a rather light warning indicating that the user should be a bit more careful. An example would be {{Uw-vandalism2}}.
Third warning: Often called "warning." Here is where the warnings start to sound more severe. These warnings often begin to threaten the potential of a blocked account. The intent here is to ensure that the user is aware of the policies and that bad things can happen to those that don't change their ways. An exclamation point icon also brings additional attention to the warning. See {{Uw-vandalism3}}.
Fourth warning: Often called "final warning." This warning gives the user a final chance to stop what they're doing before an administrator must intervene. These warnings often stress that the account will be blocked if the user doesn't cease immediately, and includes a very forceful tone. See {{Uw-vandalism4}}.
Immediate fourth warning: While I've never used it, there also exists a "first and final warning" class that could be used in extreme cases. I'm a strong proponent of Assume Good Faith so I prefer to think that the user was trying to do something constructive instead, or at the very minimum has the potential to change. However, if you do feel the need to use it, there exists this type of template that can be used to act as a fourth warning but as a first warning. An example would be {{Uw-vandalism4im}}.

Once the fourth (or fourth immediate) warning has been posted on the user's talk page, an additional edit that violates policy could warrant a block, as you saw earlier today. To start this process, first verify that the user has already received the fourth warning level and that this was posted before the user's most recent violation. If this is the case, then you can head over to Requests for Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism. Here you will find all you need to know to get an administrator's attention to the user. It's very simple: use the template specified at the top to mark the user in the appropriate location, and leave a comment regarding why. Take note that most administrators will decline your request if the user has not been given a fourth warning, because they too believe in Assume Good Faith. Finally, if your entry in this list disappears randomly, it's probably because a bot cleaned it up after an admin blocked the user. (You can verify this by going to the user's talk page and looking for a "blocked" notice.)

That's really all there is to it. Autoconfirmed users may find this a lot easier with Twinkle, which is what I use to manage vandalism. Check out that page for details on how to get it running and how to use it.

I hope that clarifies the block process for you! Remember, it should be kept as a last-resort procedure only in times of absolute need. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them either here or on my talk page. Happy hunting! --Mpdelbuono (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletions

You did well to catch that page India-Kyrgyzstan relations for deletion, for it is a clear copyvio and I have deleted it. When you do this, it is standard practice to warn the user about the matter on his user page &, if it is already deleted by the time he sees it, explain matters to him. We have a bot for the purpose, but it usually does not work reliably or fast enough, so you need to do it with the speedy deletion (or proposed deletion) template that appears on the article--it writes out the message for you. You left a message on the talk p. of the article, but that normally gets deleted when we delete the article itself. I saw it on the article talk page, and copied it to the user talk page, along with some advice of my own. While there, I checked the user contributions and saw that the user had written the exact same article also as India-kyrgyzstan relations, so I deleted that as well. That's another reason to check the user page--if someone does one incorrect article, there may well be more. It's not at all unusual for people to put in the same thing under various spellings and capitalizations, either because they think its a good idea, or hoping that one will evade detection. Keep up the good work. As you can see, there are a lot of fine points to learn about, but you will, as the rest of us have. You may find it helpful to gradually read the relevant parts of the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print) DGG (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adoption

Seems like you have go the hang of things quite well here. If you are still interested or require some guidance {{adoptoffer}}. Let me know. WikiRoxor ^talk 17:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I usually leave the warnings and reporting to others, as I do things manually without Twinkle or Huggle. Ulric1313 (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Genome Wager

The genome wager between Lewis Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake is not a piece of trivia. It addresses a very serious issue in biology, namely whether or not the development of an organism is entirely determined by genetic information. Despite popular beliefs to the contrary, this issue absolutely has not been resolved. Hence the wager between these two biologists. This is part of the grand tradition of scientific wagers and the reason it deserves its own page is that, unlike the other wagers discussed on that page, this one is current.

As to refering to this wager on other pages, I have done so on Sheldrake's page, Wolpert's page and the page devoted to scientific wagers. On all three pages, these references have been deleted. This demonstrates the editor in question is engaged in simple vandalism. This editor, Verbal, is attempting to censor any and all reference to this important wager, despite the fact that it was reported by New Scientist, and the link to this report is contained in the page.

Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

Don't worry, you obviously have a pure mind! --Step hen 05:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Ramon B. Ayala

Hello Frmatt, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Ramon B. Ayala - a page you tagged - because: source for alleged copyvio? Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. So Why 13:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra group

Hi there...you removed one of my contributions to this page and it was marked as vandalism. I don't know if it was some kind of automatic bot thing or something, but I was just hoping you could explain how it amounts to vandalism. I am going to resubmit my contribution, please don't take this as arrogance or anything. If there is an actual problem with what I have submitted please let me know.

Cheers--!---slappdash---! (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, I read this wrong...someone else vandalised the page, you reverted to my edit...I'm leaving this here as testament to my stupidity, remove it if you wish to spare me the jeers of the masses... Cheers --!---slappdash---! (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi form josh477

I took your info and done it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh477 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks...

I requested a speedy deletion of the page. I guess it worked. He is mad I want to speedy delete Robert Gomez. Thanks. BrianY (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question, how is an admin supposed to know that the page Robert Gomez is up for speedy deletion? BrianY (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this. BrianY (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your msg. abt Babuji on my talk page

Please check the history of an article before nominating them for speedy deletions. It has been reverted to its non-copyvio state now. Cheers! --Gurubrahma (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request For a deleted copy

I am hereby requesting a copy of my article 'Chykay' to be sent to my e-mail imeyen@hotmail.com as i don't even know why it was deleted in the first place. That was so not right!

I cannot provide you with a copy of your article as I was not the one who deleted it. I nominated it for deletion because the page didn't meet the notability requirements WP:Notability. If the person does meet the notability requirements, please make sure that the page you create is properly sourced with third-party references and indicates why this person should be included in an encyclopedia. If you want to create the page in your userspace before you put it live, then go ahead and do so, this is a good way to make sure your article meets WP standards. Oh, and please sign your posts using the four tildes (they're the little squiggly things) Thanks. Frmatt (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:Than I have ever known

No problem! Just happy to help :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]