User talk:RayAYang/Archive 9

AFD notifications

Hey RayAYang. I had a few questions about this edit:

1. Is there a reason you're not substituting this template?
2. Why was Closedmouth notified when he didn't create the page or make a large number of changes to it?

Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

About the substituting - good catch, I haven't used that template frequently enough before - I'll remember to do so from now on. Closedmouth was the contester of the initial PROD; I notified both PRODders and the contester, which I thought were the people immediately concerned. Twinkle also notified the article creator, I believe. Ray^Talk 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the quick reply. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Ayre

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I put in my 2 cents. Best, Ray^Talk 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chong Chieng Jen

Thank you very much for sourcing and deprodding this article about a prominent Malaysian politician. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Ray^Talk 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

Hi Ray, This is Dan, I am new to this and was doing some research on Gail Riplinger and noticed the bio on her was written by someone who apparently has a personal vendeta against her. I.E. The part about her living with her, "third" husband. Wow what a slam! Must be a female since men don't care about those things.

Next, in my research I found under the "External Links", two sections, Support and then Criticism. The Support section only had her website, which makes it appear that she has no supporters at all. Under the Non-Bias rules that is not allowed and then under the Criticism section there were 6 links to websites against her well researched 6 year conclusive findings.

The only just and fair thing is to include both supporters and criticism without personal bias and let the readers enjoy their findings based on personal research from both sides.

Thank you. Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJet777 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan: This discussion is most properly had at Talk:Gail Riplinger, but what it boils down to is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Google. Our job is not to get all the information out there, only the reliably sourced and credible information - and we put that information in our articles in a narrative form for our readers, not by spamming them with links. It is in part a stylistic decision, and in part a decision concerning the integrity of the information to which we refer our readers. Best, Ray^Talk 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work

Just another thanks for all the time consuming work you have been putting in, dealing with a vast but unnecessary emergency.John Z (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by, it's good to know it's appreciated. Best, Ray^Talk 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I too must add my thanks. I also must say that I am amazed at the rapid pace of your work. Best wishes on your continued productive editing! — James F Kalmar 07:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi RayAYang/Archive 9, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ikip, thanks for the invite. I'm very impressed by the amount of good work you've been doing around this issue, and I'll drop by when I get the chance. Cheers, Ray^Talk 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch

Inre: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Gorzelak-Dziduch. Is actually a quite notable Polish actress. I've begun expanding and sourcing, as there really is lots [1] available to work with. Maybe reconsider and help expand and source? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gah. My bad. I must've googled on the full hyphenated name. Yes, will definitely reconsider. I can't read Polish worth anything, but I'll give the good old Google Translate a try. Ray^Talk 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That sorry stub was crying out for expansion, to be sure. ANd the hyphenated name stumped me for a bit too.... until I found her on IMDB without it. I too am having trouble with the Google tranlsate, but many of the articles about her do seem quite in-depth. I'll try getting more into it later this evening. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mkativerata, FWIW, I put in my 2 cents. Honestly, I don't expect much to happen right now - the BLP drama level is still Orange ;-), but thank you very much for trying. Ray^Talk 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the chasm between BLP deletionists and inclusionists is too large right now for a consensus to be reached. Just want to at least be able to say we tried when this stream of articles turns into a flow! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, nice to meet you here. I would like to thank you for adding reliable sources to the article Chong Chieng Jen which you have been recently edited. You also have saved the article from proposed deletion due to lack of sources. I'm tried to find sources for this article but in no avail because these newspaper articles are archived and you need a money subscription in order to view the newspaper articles in full. Thank you once again for your contributions made to this article!Cerevisae (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there are particular items you want help searching online newspaper archives for, feel free to ask me - I might not respond quickly, but I do promise to get back to you. Ray^Talk 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Henry Kissinger

Didn't mean to, must have hit rollback by accident. I reverted my revert--Work permit (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1953 coup

A proposal for a new lead has been posted in Iranian 1953 coup talk page. I suspect that some regular editors on that page will oppose using it and am planning to request comments WP:RfC in that case. If that is no help I plan to request mediation or arbitration --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you good luck. If there's a RfC, I may chime in, but honestly the sheer amount of entrenched nationalist pov I encountered last time I attempted to make some fairly innocuous stylistic changes has given me a mild form of trauma where that page is concerned. Ray^Talk 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

RayAYang/Archive 9 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

John Foust

The picture of John Foust which you proposed for deletion is from a Federal Government source. I don't see why deletion would at all be appropriate. -BLM Platinum (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, feel free to discuss at the page, but the source you gave is a county government website. If you have other information that can be confirmed as to the picture's federal government origin, please do provide it. Ray^Talk 05:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thomas M. Ashe

He is a City Councilor of a major Massachusetts City. He has numerous news coverage. Ranging from 22 news (wwlp.com). abc40 news (wggb.com) and cbs3 springfield news (cbs3springfield.com). Also mentioned in local newspapers. Ya, you're right that he's not a City Councilor in Boston or New York, but it should not matter. Springfield is a the third largest city in Massachusetts with a population of 150,000+. Please reconsider deleting this page. Thank you.

(TAshe8694) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tashe8694 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong person. Ray^Talk 02:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. Thomas Ashe is a City Councilor in Springfield, MA. Springfield is the third largest city in Massachusetts. Look it up first you idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman94 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot is not the best way to get on my good side. I finally figured out what you were talking about. In retrospect, the deletion was completely justified. You can try to get it overturned at WP:DRV, but honestly I think your odds are low. Ray^Talk 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinda

It seems like people are putting it into policy, but without much (anything really) in the way of an announcement or discussion. I think it will stick in WP:DEL though I may start an RfC on the final wording. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:RFA/Raaggio

Hey, I am reviewing all the recommendations the editors at my RFA gave me and I have a question about one of yours. You said that I needed more experience at ANI, but how do I get experience at ANI? By posting more incidents? Or by commenting on already posted ones? My question might sound ignorant, but I just don't see the use of a non-admin commenting on this page. RaaGgio (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't say that you needed more experience at ANI. I said that since you were proposing to work at ANI, you would need more experience there (honestly, I think ANI is an area best avoided). It wouldn't have come up if you'd wanted to work in something else. That said, if you want to work there, you should start chiming in on some of the discussions. There are discussions that happen there that everybody is welcome to participate in, and a record of thoughtful participation, creative solutions to knotty problems, etc., would stand you in good stead. Ray^Talk 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Törnstrand

Wouldn't the top division be fully professional? And if so, he's a fully professional footballer, since he helped to get them promoted to it and since he's apparently still a member of the club. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the first division referenced at the very end of the article is actually the third tier, according to our article on it. So he went from a third tier team to a second tier team. Kinda like going from a AA team to a AAA team in baseball, but never played in the majors. At least, that's how I read it. Ray^Talk 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Snitker AfD =

Ray, I've added some additional sources in the AfD discussion for Alexander Snitker. They are tagged as Source under the Additional Sources heading. I was hoping you could take a look and see if you think it now meets the criteria for WP:N. - PlainSight (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

have done so, and responded at the AfD. Best, Ray^Talk 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PROD tag removal

Thank you for the notification that you removed the PROD tag on Jafar Zafarani. The article appeared very borderline to me and I couldn't find anything to solidify any claim of notability (low google scholar citations etc.); however the additional sourced information you added certainly helps establish notability. Thanks for adding it to the article. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply :) It's tricky with some of these foreign scholars, and I do think this one would be borderline at AfD. I'll try to firm it up a little more. Best, Ray^Talk 16:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

list of terrorist incidents

I hope some debates didnt come out as too confrontational. I make mistakes too, but you were right on the delete in the Tapuah junction and the current debate is building a consensus (btw- its just consistency im askign for, not the issue itself). This is wikipedia is going from bad to worse, it was a grand idea but its completely driven by politics. As if the Middle East is not bad enough now the irish republican are patrolling pages.

There is a Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism but no Jewish terrorism (and this Sikh terrorism) then there's an American state terrorism but Israeli state terrorism. Fair enough, but i tried adding the USS Liberty to Zionist political violence and guess what...?

But i think wikipedia's time has come. it did its duty, and did it well for a long time but now its better for more subject focused "pedias." Love to see how a "political" one comes along. Maybe starting a "Terrorpedia" could be a good idea. Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom notice: 1953 Iranian coup POV

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#1953 Iranian coup POV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I put in my 2cents. My respect for persisting in trying to clean up the article after all this time. Best of luck, Ray^Talk 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting the tar baby. Your voice is appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tapuah_junction_stabbing

I haven't seen your reply to the post on that for a week. Am i to take it as consensus? There are also many edits on the list of terror incidents that shouldnt be there, we need to reform that through a debate. Also the list page is far too long. THERE is another palestinian incidents (Silwan) and others that dont meet the criteria.

I'm also holding off on the Iran revert (i just added to talk)Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a consensus that the subject is not relevant to the Tapuah Junction article, since the incident fits our criteria. Anything else you want to discuss, is best not discussed at that place. Ray^Talk 15:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I started discussion on the terrorist incidents page but the two were similiar so i said to have the discussion in one place. Should I move it back to the terrorist incidents, 2010 page? neither page has a reply. Well, wherever you want to discuss it go ahead.Lihaas (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Complaint from interested new editor

I don't follow why you reverted my contribution to Bob Beauprez. I thought Wikipedia encouraged one be bold with edits. Would you rather I not improve articles? Is this a personal vendetta against improving articles about prominent Republicans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.67.15.97 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't engage in patent vandalism, and perhaps you won't find yourself reverted as much. On the off chance that you actually want to do something constructive here, I refer you to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you consider valid improvements "vandalism". Hoenstly, do you really just dislike having valid, but provocative, facts added about prominent political figures? I don't see how I could have been more neutral in my presentation about his hidden feline identity.

Also, I didn't stoop to calling you a petty, pedantic curmudgeon with no personality. Seems sort of cruel to call me a vandal. I'm hurt. 138.67.15.97 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bill Mauldin Postage stamp.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill Mauldin Postage stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thank you for the notice. Have replied at the discussion. Ray^Talk 22:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tracy Posner

I took a pass at cleaning the section you tagged, if you have a chance, take a look and see what other changes you'd suggest. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Have done. Thanks muchly. Ray^Talk 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for the feedback. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on Hauser's page

Hey,

I put back some of the stuff you deleted (though I shortened it). I think it's important to relay what different people allegedly claim about the Hauser case, but it's equally important to make clear that - as of now - these opinions are just unconfirmed rumors. In fact, those who are most likely to know more about the case (Hauser's students) apparently refused to be interviewed (as reported in pretty much all of the articles), and those who speak up are either notorious competitors of Hauser (e.g., Tomasello) or anonymous research assistant who claim that, for some reason, they had the idea of digging up 6 year old data. They might well have had the idea, but I have never seen an RA who was that motivated, or who stayed for 6 years in a lab. Typically, they leave after a term or two.

The unconfirmed claims might well be true, but they might just as well be false, given that people like Tomasello and the alleged research assistants might have different motivations to see Hauser fall. I would agree that the part about the accusers potentially having their own motifs shouldn't be mentioned because there is no independent evidence for it, but it should be clear that their opinions have not been confirmed.

V2oo5dpa (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - my issue was less with the facts you wanted to point out, than it was with the tone and language you chose to use -- language which strikes me as unduly argumentative, rather than narrative and impartial. Any opinion you might have on the graduate student in question do not belong - only verified information and commentary from authoritative sources. Best, Ray^Talk 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Quico Canseco

He got significant media coverage. How do you explain that?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss ongoing AFDs with me on my talk page, particularly in a confrontational tone. The place for such discussions is at the AFD. Ray^Talk 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ray, thanks for the heads-up about suggested deletion

Much obliged that you gave me notice! I'm on it.Wikibojopayne (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

New article you might want to look at

In case you wander by :-) Last year you commented on a deletion discussion of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood| Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood]. The related article Jewish control of the media has been created by an editor and has some issues, discussed in talk, you might want to comment upon. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I have found sources relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine McQueen and ask you to revisit your !vote. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I just proposed Walter Timilty for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of Sharyn O’Halloran entry

You have removed a thoroughly documented section regarding the arrest of Dr. O’Halloran’s husband, David Epstein, for incest. I believe you have no grounds or right to do this. You assert that this is “outing,” but the arrest is now public record and widely publicized, including in the Columbia University newspaper. You claim that it is a personal attack, but I posted nothing but the basic facts of the case. I do not know the parties, nor do I have an opinion about Dr. O’Halloran, Dr. Epstein, or the alleged facts. I never heard of them before yesterday, though they are said to be prominent academics and Dr. Epstein contributes to The Huffington Post. I contend that you have no right to delete my additions without first discussing them, and that they do not violate Wikipedia guidelines. Go through the proper process to have the article altered as you prefer. You can start by commenting on my post to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Nicmart (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the proper process is under way at the talk page. I suggest, again, that you study our WP:BLP policy more closely. You may find it helpful to study our policy on edit warring as well. Ray^Talk 18:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC:Mongol influences in European art

Hello Ray! Thank you all for your comments at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance! Now that the RfC is over, and since concensus seems to be that the sandbox article User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sandbox/Mongol elements in Western medieval art is a worthwhile article, would you mind actually copying the article into the main space: Mongol elements in Western medieval art, and link one or two articles to it? Thank you! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! Ray^Talk 18:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ray! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi RayAYang. You may not have been aware of this, but PHG is subject to an Arbitration ruling that bans him from editing anything to do with the Mongols (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended for the full text of the remedy). It appears you've recently allowed him to circumvent the ban by proxying an article into the mainspace for him [2]. I'm sure you had no idea he was banned, but in the future, please beware of strange requests like this. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 10:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I hadn't been aware of this. It looked a little strange, but the request seemed in order, and there was an RfC about the suitability of the article. I'll be a tad more watchful in the future. Cheers, Ray^Talk 02:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)