This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Looks like it was the right thing to do to go through a formal {{AfD}}. The community is really struggling with this one. Initially I thought it would end up as a keep, but now it appears that it will end up as a no-consensus. Dems on the move ( talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The book "Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices" is a relatively new book, and generally for a book to be referenced in other books and papers/articles etc, it takes about 1-2 years. Similarly reviews of a book to appear in scholarly journals take -on an average- about a year or so. Thus the reasoning that "only references on Gscholar are by the author of the book" may not be a correct reasoning for removing this book from Wikipedia.
Overall, this is a good and informative book, published by a reputed publisher. The book gives good information about paraphilias and its legal aspects, and thus I feel that it should be retained in Wikipedia.
I boxed for many years and received many awards, and I feel this article should remain. Maybe I didn't format the article properly, but please do not delete the information. I am new at this and maybe you can help me write the article properly. Thank you, Narciso "Kid" Martinez NarcisoMartinez ( talk) 08:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I agree with you regarding the Pascal Tosi (director) article, for future reference you should avoid prods for articles when an earlier prod has been denied. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi RayAYang! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Eugen Campu- because: Not a blatant hoax. He is a real mathematician, and has claimed to have solved the problem If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype ( talk) 11:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Your time reviewing Ruth Bader Ginsburg is much appreciated. I really learned a lot. And your time and contribution isn't unnoticed. -- NickDupree ( talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi: You seem to be in an edit war over at Osama bin Laden. Please do not call fellow editors stupid, and discuss controversial changes on the Talk page instead of edit warring. Thanks, Ray Talk 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries about the consolidated citations -- because this sort of thing probably happens more often than either you or I imagine.
Will you please take a look at my short, one-sentence addition. As you may know, a pointed detail can help any subject come alive; but the one sentence I added about Churchill's 1937 purchase of a pet parrot may need to be tweaked, tightened up, or perhaps re-worded? I found this tidbit in a New York newspaper in January; and the clipping was mislaid until today. There is another element which encourages me to think this detail is a noteworthy enhancement. According to the article, "During the war, Churchill would delight visitors to his private chambers by getting Charlie to curse out the Germans -- and the bird has apparently kept up the tradition" ...? -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to be more careful about this, having recently learned 3RR applies to a consensus as well as another editor. - MBHiii ( talk) 04:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ray, I'm the author of the VPEC-T article and have seen your notability tag. As background, let me mention that I have used this business-oriented thinking framework for information systems analysis myself, and I think it's valuable, so I'd like to see it retained. Can I look to you for clarification on secondary sources, if I may? Yes, some of the external links are primary sources - the book's author's blog and so on, but I felt that Computerworld, Forbes.com and University of Greenwhich were reliable, secondary sources about the topic. Can you offer me some guidance as to why they are not, please?
Thanks, I'd appreciate it. Argey ( talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mishavonna Henson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aspects ( talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the NPOV warning, I was busy re-sourcing the "Controversies" portion with more legitimate news sources than blogs, since the refs were broken anyway. I'll re-add it once I'm done. K thanks :) - Torax the lorax ( talk) 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to remove dicussions about my business, Four Paws Enterprise, as I find them slanderous. I don't appreciate what was writen and wish them to be removed. No one seems to understand that even though they are opinions, they are both hurtful and disrespectful. Please remove the discussions as I do not want them to be part of the talk pages. 75.146.96.21 ( talk) 03:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I plan on sueing wikimedia foundation after making multiple requests to remove slanderous content. 75.146.96.21 ( talk) 03:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Joe Chill ( talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ray. Thanks for checking out the COI issue on the Kori Schake article. -- When in doubt, eat potatoes ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You have been very generous in offering me your help and a lot of manuals, if I have any questions, I´m sure to ask to you. I Give you thanks:-- Danielesteban12 ( talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish to add the information that Kagan (like many journalists) was of the opinion that WMD's will be found - While respecting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Will I be able to add this information - or is this information inherently foul of WP:NPOV? Ideally it would be great if you could edit my post to a sufficient standard or guide me. Thanks Chendy ( talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi: I notice you've been adding people to Category:Phi Beta Kappa Society. It would be very much appreciated if you could insert a brief (sourced and cited) sentence about these people's memberships into their biographies. Is that possible? Thanks, Ray Talk 15:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I was relying on several sources and methods to verify and using more than one per bio, including: 1. the list by year of induction that is on wikipedia, 2. the phi beta kappa site lists, 3. the bios themselves which often include a mention of membership. 4. In addition, I would cross check college and year with other information in the bio.
It seemed to me that was sufficient verification per Wikipedia standards, but apparently you wish to require more?
I will probably have just a few specific questions based on your response. Regards, W E Hill ( talk) 16:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In August, you place a notability tag on Johnny Rico. I've cleaned it up somewhat. Do you think it's ready to have the notability tag removed? Dincher ( talk) 13:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome! :D
btw, I noticed your userbox says you'd like to be an admin someday. I think you'd make a fine admin.. how do you feel about being listed at Wikipedia:Vetting process? -- œ ™ 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well it doesn't look like the vetting process is going anywhere.. the whole proposal doesn't seem to have taken off as an idea.. shall I formally nominate you for adminship then? -- œ ™ 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not looking for a recantation of your statements, and I respect that you are not sugar-coating your opinion just to skate through RFA. However I do find your views on the requirements for reliable sources w.r.t. redirects, to be incompatible with my understanding of our core policies. I don't intend to distract you any further from the RFA, and this good-faith disagreement aside, wish you the continue enjoying contributing to wikipedia as an editor or admin, as the case may be. Cheers. Abecedare ( talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a page that has been nominated for deletion...any suggestions? User: Upgradejrrn 7:43pm Oct 12,2009
Hello Ray, I noticed you marked UniSoma page with the 'advert' and 'notability' tags. As for the advert, I will try my best to modify the content to a neutral point of view, although I do not think it could be considered a spam. As for notability, I originally added the page due to the 'Franz Edelman Award for Management Science Achievement' the company received in 1995. This award is highly praised in the operations research area and therefore should, imo, be a relevant and independent source of notability. Do you agree? Luisfdcp ( talk) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am sorry to inform you that your recent RfA did not demonstrate that there was consensus in the wikipedia community for you to be able to access the janitorial tools at this time. I understand that this is disappointing, having been on the receiving end of failed requests myself. My unasked for advice to you would be to take a few days away from EnWiki and let the emotional roller coaster settle, and then return and read the opposition statements. Consistently and honestly addressing the issues raised in the opposition would be the most important step in gaining the community's trust. Good Luck! -- Avi ( talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Avi and Dan: Thanks very much for your kind thoughts, and I think I will take your advice - if I can stand to stay away for that long! Best, Ray Talk 02:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In regards to that redirect that was the topic of so much discussion on your RfA, I found something that relates to that and thought you might find it interesting to read: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept?. -- œ ™ 02:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
I only prod recently created articles. I don't prod old articles because I don't like a possibly notable article to be deleted. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, its nice to get some unexpected appreciation! -- Milowent ( talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again Ray, but I was looking forward to some feedback regarding my changes to the UniSoma page. I am also not sure how to proceed in removing the tags (notoriety and spam) that you had assigned it. Can I do this myself? Thanks for the help in advance. Luisfdcp ( talk) 11:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
While your edits, made in good faith, bring up valid points. It is considered "polite" to discuss changes on the talk page of controversial topics. If you would care to spell out the changes you would like to make as well as provide the references you have used, you may find a warmer reception. Also, accusing people of attempting to OWN an article is inappropriate. Please also consider the tone of the changes you wish to make. - 4twenty42o ( talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the star! Glad you find the bot's contribs useful. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! My editing for much of this month has been sporadic and when I edit, I frequently work on my posts in an off-wiki file first and then add them to Wikipedia. Anyway, one post I wrote earlier in the month but for which the discussion was closed is the following, which I have no idea if it does you any good or interest now, but I am posting it here for your interest anyway:
For RayAYang RfA: Weak support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. I had earlier evaluated this editor at Wikipedia:Editor review/RayAYang, where you can see some of the positives I identified in my first statement followed by some suggestions. Concerning the former, the candidate earned a second barnstar since the Editor review and still has a clean block log. With regards to the latter, as you can see, the editor and I do not really see eye to eye in AfDs, but for the RfA, I think in fairness I should focus on post editor review stuff. I think he responded to my review civilly, even if we still disagree on WP:PERNOM. Anyway, post-editor review, I found this comment reasonable (“worthless” may have been harsh, but the suggestions for improvement are sound). This comment I naturally disagree with, and right after the AfD closed, I even noticed additional sources of ships made into a real world cake, etc., but edit history was undeleted by closing admin after discussion, so no harm no foul, I guess. My main suggestion in such an instance as that is that as the AfD went on, new sources were brought to light, many new arguments advanced and so, it is a good idea to sometimes revisit discussions. I am not saying go back and forth with people as some of us did, but maybe make a comment noting that you have taken into account the new arguments and sources and are either still not persuaded or as I would have hoped and as most of those toward the end of the discussion tended to agree that maybe we do have something worth either developing further or merging. The candidate did make a couple of RfA votes that I think reflect poor judgment, but appear to be a case of WP:AGF, which is somewhat hard to knock someone for. So, it is somewhat mixed here and I see editors whose opinions I respect both supporting and opposing. I guess with it being my favorite time of the year and just general frame of mind, I don’t have it in me to oppose someone and heck, I think if Kww’s RfA is still open, maybe after this post, I’ll go there and strike my oppose. I don’t want to take the coward’s way out and all, but I have had enough unpleasant experiences on wiki; I’d rather enjoy it from here on out and I can probably make effective suggestions and constructive criticisms even in supports. I just want to be a positive person! I hope you understand.
I apologize for missing the actual discussion. I do not know what effect my post would have had, i.e. if it would have been enough to help you or not, but anyway here it is. All the best! -- A Nobody My talk 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)