User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/March

Thanks

I very much appreciate your heroic efforts. U no where. --Ettrig (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fighting the status quo patrol.

Thank you for your efforts to support good faith edits. It is discouraging that some folks seem to think that any change is bad and are quick to mindlessly revert (rather than further edit to improve). Your work gives me some hope that there are others out there who will push back against wp:bite-type behavior. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to assume WP:FAITH. I think they don't even read what they're reverting. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My Edit

The edit I have made is correct. If you click the source you will see this. It is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.151.245 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the warnings from your talk page and edited the page with the Purple Jesus nickname and added a reference that backs up the "All Day" nickname. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive?

I genuinely feel my edit was constructive. I think the wording of the article implied wrong information. However, I'm not committed enough to fight over the edit. I simply wanted to point out I'm not a vandal. Thanks for taking an interest in keeping Wikipedia useful. Good evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.10.109 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just felt "menstrual laws" was likely a vandal edit, if it's not (and I'm no expert on the Talmud) then feel free to add it back, explaining it in the Edit summary. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably an accurate description of Niddah - the word Niddah (in Hebrew) means a woman in the week after her period. But clearly, that's nothing to do with Temple purity (as the original wording implied). For other examples, tractate Oholos deals with people and items under the same roof as a dead body, also unrelated to the Temple. I think I managed to change it back. 79.179.10.109 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Suleman AfD

I would like to ask you to re-consider your course of action at this AfD. You and Psycim are fillibustering the debate, and it is now starting to turn ugly. The article is clearly going to be kept, the worst that's going to happen is it will be closed as "no consensus" which defaults to a keep, so this constant arguing isn't really going to help, and I think it would be better to back off and let the AfD run it's course. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Excuse me, but what I did to the article concerning Omar al-Bashir was simply deleting false information about that person which was written in the first headline. If you look at the references regarding his personal life, you'll realize that he has two wives, but no children of his own. For deleting it I am sorry, but don't you threathen to block me from Wikipedia due to my active editing with the article, when I'm the one who's right in this situation. Continue to do that, you'll be blocked from editing on Wikipedia.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.180.148 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

template the regulars?

No need to template the regulars. My edit had a clear summary, and was discuss in the talk page. May I remind you that you are close to the 3 revert rule. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be removing content when the reasoning behind it minimal at best, and when every other multiple-birth page lists the children's names. I'm well aware of the 3-revert-rule, and if we can't resolve this in Talk then we'll have to take further steps. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I ment to say 'you shouldn't be removing content until it's been properly discussed on the talk page' — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS

I believe it was all in WP:RS, which I supplied. But the article's not my baby, just something I felt like contributing to momentarily, so I'll leave you to it. What did you consider to be 'libel' though? It was nothing that isn't in reliable sources, nor was it accusing her of any crime or indeed anything that woud damage her reputation unfortunately. So, not libel. Sticky Parkin 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Do to the heated debated of the most recent AfD we need to only use rock solid sources that are not even remotely questionable. This source you used is an op-ed piece, and a pretty vicious one at that, hardly something we want to use right now. As for the mental state issue, we discussed it on the talk page here and have decided unless there was clear clear medically backed up evidence presented to the fact, we'll not touch it right now. The Angelina Jolie references hasn't really produced anything reliable other then hearsay. It all seems to stem from an 'anonymous' source in Jolie's camp telling TMZ about it, and all the news articles from there either quote from that article or just speculate. Shes denied it, she looks like her no doubt, she's most likely had plastic surgery judging from older pics of her, but right now no rock solid references exist to link this, so we're leaving it out. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Do you have a recommendation regarding how best to respond to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution%2FFAQ&diff=277219774&oldid=276804631 ? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my impatience. I went ahead and tried this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEvolution&diff=277236908&oldid=277084548

I'd still appreciate any input you might have. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say your doing the correct thing, giving him a chance to express why he doesn't like it on the talk page. He keeps reverting changes that was discussed with plenty of time on talk page then I'd say bring it up with an admin on the notice board. I see no problems with your edits, personally. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Aria (singer)

I've really enjoyed our discussions over at Bobbi Moro. I just noticed you prodded an article about Aria. Now certainly I do agree that that article is full of fluff and nonsense, but I at least familiar with her works and think I can bring it into line with WP:Entertainer, even if all the others are really quite hopeless... this specialy because our errant author has actualy gven me a lot with which to work in this one case. What say I give that one a tweak or 2 or 20 or 100? I believe that at least this one is quite salvagable. The author's POV and ADVERT will be removed. I promise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the PROD if you feel it can be saved. I sadly had to have all the images on it deleted, since they showed no evidence that the license she uploaded them with was what the copyright holder intended. They where very professional studio shots and she uploaded them as public domain, so they could be used commercially, and they was in high rez format. I found it hard to believe they would release it that way so they ended up getting deleted. Possibly you could contact that website and get a OTRS for them and have them uploaded to commons. I'm all for more images on commons, but such images that she uploaded seems unlikely they would be public domain. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am about to hit submit after its first washing, and will renove the prod at that time. Please note that there is much more yet to do and I am on it. But I have to do this in sections so as to maintain a viewer's readable integrity as I work. Its a slightly bigger task than I thought, but do-able. In its current state it reads like a fansite. That will be going. My first stage of tweaking will be the removal of a lot of hyperbole and fluff... not all yet, but lots. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain to me!

I really appreciate it. Still don't quite know how I ended up on John Steckley's page, but think I understand a bit better now about what constitutes notability in these circs. Mabalu (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent prods

I removed a few of your recent prods, being a head or assistant coach in a major school like West Virginia meets WP:BIO easily, also removed a couple of prods on top college football prospects. Thanks Secret ^account 13:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the policies I listed just being a coach isn't enough to be notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people they're notable "if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." This would be like Huggin's got national news attention, but all the coaches I prod'd are virtually unknown outside of their college(s). That means they fail that criteria. And just because they're a football prospect does NOT qualify a player under WP:ATHLETE. Every college level player dreams, hopes to be, or would be listed as a "prospect." We can't add a page for every person who's played college level sports. Getting a notable award, or news coverage (about the person specifically) would qualify them, the people I prod'd I believe do NOT meet that criteria. Some of those pages will be nominated for AfD where this can be discussed more. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a extreme deletionist with sports articles as this is what I work with, don't get me wrong, but I'm going by past consensus here. West Virginia is in Division I sports, thus the coaches are notable (especially the basketball coach) others like Noel Divine was profiled in sources like the NYT, ESPN, and so fourth, only seldom does top college football players get their own article, but Divine easily meets the criteria. I didn't remove every prod, as many I agree with. Secret ^account 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many of your PRODs, but you might want to slow down a little. Noel Devine, for instance, is about as notable a player as there is in college football. TheMile (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries when nominating pages for deletion.

Please can I ask that when you nominate an article for deletion, you add an appropriate edit summary for the AfD log. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: Step number three suggests you use a summary such as "Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]". This makes it easier for those watching the log to easily access discussion pages. A blank summary isn't very informative or useful. Thanks! Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jason Colson

Fantastic, yet you still found it nescessary to defend an improper citation of WP:Athlete with improper research instead of simply stating your basis for the initial prod (i.e. agreeing with my statements). I'm not sure I see your point in even commenting on my edits. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your're correct

It was twice, my error. When you first removed it, you said she was not in the article, just wished to make sure that the Variety was returned because it did in fact reference her in connection with Kingsley. The "ads" elsewhere useed the Variet article as their source. Don't want SPS. Do want a reliable source. Good catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

unconstructive

good day raeky. just how do you intend to write an article that is constructive but at the same time does not distort the truth? some editors in the article may have had poor use of words but that in itself is not vandalism, a public show of bias or plain incompetence. not unless i presume you know a lot about what we posted about am i willing to concede to such strongly-worded comments. we do not sacrifice truth for form and that good friend is not always advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.96.37 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about, what page, what edit, what anything? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)