Hello, RayDeeUx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Brooklyn Technical High School. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Contributions to iPad pro articleEdit
Thank you for specifying why you reverted my changes on the iPad pro article. I appreciate the communication rather than a revision war.
Thanks For Liking some of my stuffEdit
Thanks for liking most of my posts on Wikipedia, it's fun to see people who are happy to do these kinds of things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvasiveFire1987 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi RayDeeUx! We've started the Case Count Task Force to gather information about the most reliable sources for each country and to coordinate updates. I hope you find the info useful, and feel free to update it directly. If you think you can commit to update a few countries frequently, you can add your username to the corresponding country in the table (see the Spain row for an example). Best, MarioGom (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw your messageEdit
Thanks for the feedback. I will def consider it in mind. I have been getting a lot of edit requests that state a fact or something like that, but are not really suggesting an edit. So therefore there are a lot of "unclear (x -> y)" that I have been handling. Aasim 21:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Awesome Aasim: Understood. Just remember that if an edit request simply consists of "update case count for this location/international conveyance" then don't worry about the request not using the "change X to Y" format. There's an influx of contributors who want their respective locations' COVID–19 figures updated and there are some who want to get their suggested edits out before they forget what it was. Cheers, (contribs | talk page) 21:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
re: request for change regarding reporting of recovery numbers.Edit
Its a nice footnote*, but it misses the point. The point was that the way this information is being used (probably by bots) to auto update google front page with misleading information. Its cool we have a footnote, and anyone that wants to can get to the bottom of the 220k recovery number inaccuracies and we should have somewhere that we tabulate what information is available. What I feel like we should also consider is our responsibility for creating mass confusion for how the numbers are portrayed to anyone trying to google reliable covid19 stats. I have already sent a message to google regarding the misleading presentation of your accurate information (that page contains no mention of the footnote but it does break it down by state if you scroll and unhide the information). What I was hoping was that the community could discuss a way to fix the problem at its source here in wikipedia.
Sure you could say, "well here on wikipedia, where we use it and have control, it is adequately explained that the data is innacruate" which is true but is not going to solve the problem of thousands of people being misled as we rest on our laurels. sure we cant be responsible for how every third party might use or misuse the information, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the people referencing this information are going to be referencing it through google, not through wikipedia, and are thereby going to be misled. You have an opportunity to fix potentially thousands of people being misled by the misuse of the information you are providing, and it would seem to be in your power to do something about it so I figured that it might be beneficial to discuss how/if that could be solved on our end in case google chooses not to act.
It might not be your direct responsibility or your direct purpose here on Wikipedia, but it does seem that you have the power and opportunity to right a wrong and I believe that creates a responsibility to do take action. Like I said, I don't know how to solve the problem, but perhaps with some discussion we could figure out a way to give accurate information in way that does not potentially mislead (through google) more people than it helps (through wikipedia).
- actually, since less than half the states are reporting saying "Not all states or overseas territories report recovery data" implies that there is some data missing but could give the impression that the number given is close to an accurate representation of US Recoveries. While being a bit more precise like "Most states or overseas territories do not report recovery data therefore the actual number of recoveries in the US is currently unknown" would create a more accurate impression. Or maybe you could put an estimated margin of error beside it so people can appreciate how not counting half the states might make the number unreliable. Maybe you could color coat reliable vs unreliable numbers, I don't know, but as it is presented now it is makes a stronger impression that we intend to convey.
p.s. sorry if I don't know how any of this works, I created an account solely to try to fix this tidbit of misleading information being broadcast throughout the web. I don't have confidence in my feedback to google making much headway (do people even read those?). So my guess is that you are (even though I know you are not responsible for what google posts) the only person that can make a difference regarding how google is presenting your information, and I believe you can do so by changing how that information is formatted or presented here at the source.
- Sulris, thank you for your detailed explanation. However, we have no control over which states report recoveries. The best option right now is to contact Google to include the footnotes associated with a location listed on the template into the sidebar along with the numbers. Additionally, we are not responsible for any consequences that rise from usage of the template. It was originally solely intended for the article COVID–19 pandemic. Cheers, (contribs | talk page) 14:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment on toneEdit
First, thank you for your work and your contributions surrounding the COVID pandemic, as well as before that.
I understand that you probably have to deal with plenty of actual trolls and vandals in very highly visible content. I don't mind at all that you answered the request via the comment and by simply deleting it, particularly, as it was already discussed and answered somewhere in the 13 pages of the archive, as you pointed out helpfully. That's all OK. But the link to WP:DENY was, in my opinion, unnecessarily unfriendly, and I would suggest that you consider for a moment whether a edit summary such as this is contributing to a welcoming climate in Wikipedia.
I am sure we are on the same page regarding Wikipedia. A reply is not needed.
inquiry from the Foundation's Communications DepartmentEdit
Dear User: RayDeeUX
I'm a member of the Foundation's Communications department. We recently received a media inquiry about the Worldometer decision. We'd love your assistance in helping us address the inquiry. Would it be possible for you to email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. The reporter's questions are pretty straightforward and we hope it won't take up much of your time.