User talk:Raeky/Archives/2012/June

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Question

I don't know of a policy, and I've found that attempting to police userpages (except in the most obvious cases- non-free content being one) leads to an awful lot of upset and drama. My first foray into ArbCom (thankfully just giving some evidence) was because I tried to remove some aggression from a userpage. If you're not comfortable with it being there, I'd recommend just politely asking for it to be removed. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, who cares what someone who can't even spell their username correctly thinks. GDallimore (Talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Archiving

Hello User:Raeky! Thanks for your message and for your contributions to Wikipedia! I personally do prefer that all my messages are kept on one page. I do appreciate your concern however and wish you the best. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WPVA

FYI, I replied to your half-month-old comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. You were looking for specific requests however and I was not too specific. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

You have been mentioned at WP:AE, Arbitration Enforcement, in relation to sanctions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Raeky, please remain calm and don't unnecessarily create bad blood with an editor who is acting in good faith and does have something valuable to add. I strongly advise plenty of mutual respect and patient listening. Like I told Fifelfoo, you guys agree more than you disagree, and have a great deal to learn from each other. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

re: Nadya Suleman

Your claims of vandalism on my part are are absolutely ridiculous. Please stop leaving unnecessary warnings on my talk page and please stop threatening me with a block of my editing privileges. No policy has been violated on my part, so best of luck if you choose to attempt to go that route. 24.137.71.242 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

admins take blp violations very seriously, and the warn templates I used was appropriate... I'm quite familiar with policy in this reguard. — raekyt 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. The info was properly sourced.Freshfighter9^talk 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in the previous edits... the article has recently been taken off page protection from an assult of similar edits, and the talk page of the article discusses them already. It's still mostly rumor and even though these sources are a little better than previous TMZ type articles, they're not without their problems for BLP. — raekyt 11:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: the BLP violation, the big policies here we need to abide by are WP:BLPGOSSIP and the reason why we don't need to include something that is just now happening before the movie is even really announced officially or any kind of official information WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. — raekyt 11:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent reversion on this subject, there was no longer an issue that I can see regarding the credibility of the sources. It seems you even concede that point. It seems you now have an issue with the wording, though I can see nothing wrong with that either. Why not just reword it? Reverting everything you don't agree with isn't productive. From where I sit, you are being rather stubborn on this subject. I'm not going to involve myself any further in this because it's likely pointless, so do what you feel is right.Freshfighter9^talk 20:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD the whole R, revert, part, means it's ok to revert changes THEN discuss them, and per WP:BLP it's best to err on the side of discussion BEFORE inclusion for controversial or objectionably content. This isn't a trivial addition, this is adding material she herself is cautious about calling porn, so wording needs to be thought out, and again per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER we don't have to add this material right now, we can wait until things are certain, movie is released and not just rumor... Your welcome to contribute to the discussion I made on the talk page after last revert, if you even saw it, or invite others to comment on my behavior but to just throw out accusations of WP:OWN and other malicious behavior accusations isn't helpful to the discussion. There are routes if you think just adding information for future events about a person on their article, things that hasn't happened, things that news reporters are relying on people named "Bubbles" as their source, and for rumors from tweets of porn stars about future films, is in-line with BLP policies, then please, goahead. Otherwise I recommend caution, patience and prudence when dealing with adding PORNOGRAPHIC information to a BLP. — raekyt 20:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What "future events" are you referring to? The information is question, which you are trying very hard to keep excluded, has clearly already happened. The video was filmed. It's not a rumor. The "malicious behavior accusations" as you refer to them are valid concerns. In fact, a bias in your editing may be present as well. Not an accusation, just an observation.Freshfighter9^talk 16:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wheres the official anointment from the studio that it was filmed or release date or title or cover art? The articles say it was filmed, but that's all based on rumor most likely stemming from the original TMZ article. — raekyt 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)